516 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



July 1. 



took his or her place behind a chair at the 

 dining-table; and at the tap of the bell each 

 one stood with bowed head and reverently 

 returned thanks for all the blessings that were 

 around and about them. At another tap of the 

 bell each took a seat and enjoyed a splendid 

 dinner, gotten up by their own members who 

 have charge of the culinary department. I 

 said to myself I was thankful I lived in a land 

 where the light of learning is being carried to 

 those uncultured minds. I could see that each 

 one, as he returned to his respective tribe, 

 would be a nucleus for much future good. But 

 the system to me seems yet incomplete; for, so 

 long as their tribal relations exist, many will 

 drift back to their former modes and manners, 

 and can not accomplish the good they could if 

 they were made full citizens, and given land in 

 severalty. 



In changing from Indians back to bees I will 

 say I should think it would pay you or some one 

 else to establish a branch house for the distri- 

 bution of supplies here or somewhere on the 

 western slope of the Rockies, as the freight is 

 nearly as high from here to Denver as from here 

 to Medina. 



Bees have wintered well here, and are rich in 

 old stores — a condition which is very desirable 

 where bees fly nearly every day in the spring, 

 but gather nothing. 



I will say, in closing, that we are all in good 

 health, and are nearly in love with this coun- 

 try, as we have good schools, good churches, 

 and good society; and we hope to live so as to 

 add to instead of taking from the good things 

 to be found in this land. 



Grand Junction, Col., April 8, 1895. 



T SUPER VS, SECTION-HOLDER. 



THE MATTEK DISCUSSED FURTHER 



By Dr. C. C. Miller. 



I had hoped before this time to notice the 

 editorial remarks on page 354. Perhaps you 

 have fondly hoped, Mr. Editor, that I wouldn't. 

 You say, "We boomed the T-super arrange- 

 ment in our 1895 catalog harder than ever, put- 

 ting in a nice wood cut. But our packers hard- 

 ly know what it is." Yes, you made a nice 

 picture of it, and all that; but then you said 

 the section-holder is better. Now suppose you 

 leave out the booming picture; don't say a 

 word in praise of the T super; give high praise 

 to the section-holder, and then make the re- 

 mark that the T super is better than the sec- 

 tion-holder. Then see if your packers won't 

 know what the T super is. The point I'd like 

 to have you see is, that all your booming isn't 

 booming at all. You might just exactly as well 

 not put the T super in your list at all, so far as 

 beginners are concerned, as to put it there with 

 picture and high praise, and then say, " We 



consider the |section-holder superior ^to any 

 other." 



I asked you to name a single feature of the 

 section-holder better than the T super. To 

 this you make no attempt at reply, except to 

 say, "T supers were not very well adapted to 

 the Dovetail hive without making supers of 

 different lengths from the regular hive-body." 

 That is, the reason that the section-holder is 

 superior is because it looks better to have a 

 super the same length as a hive-body. And for 

 that matter of looks you advise beginners to 

 use an inferior articlel I believe in looks, but 

 I don't want inferior bees just because they are 

 handsome, and I don't want a super for looks. 

 In the picture of the T super you have four 

 pieces nailed on to make out the length. One 

 of those pieces would work just as well as the 

 four. 



You say the single-tier wide frame '' seemed 

 to have all the advantages of the T super." 

 Without mentioning any thing else, let me ask 

 whether the wide frame has the advantage 

 that a section of any width can be used in it. 



You disavow the idea of calling me an old 

 fogy; but then you make me tear my hair with 

 rage by saying that I prefer the T super be- 

 cause I have become accustomed to it, and my 

 habits of workingifit it better than any thing 

 else. Now look here; don't you know I was 

 accustomed to the wide frames, and that my 

 habits of working fitted them? I had raised 

 tons of honey with wide frames, and had an 

 invention of my own for emptying them that 

 you thought worth describing and illustrating. 

 I threw aside the hundreds of wide frames I 

 had, both single and double tier, and adopted 

 the T super. Why shouldn't I be just as will- 

 ing to throw aside the T super for something 

 better ? 



And while we're on that point, will you please 

 tell us what advantage the section-holder has 

 over the old wide frame? Certainly not ease of 

 manipulation. The only advantage I can 

 think of is that the tops of thesections are un- 

 covered the same as in T supers. You have 

 said that T supers are far better than wide 

 frames, and now how can you say wide frames 

 are better than T supers simply because the 

 top-bars are left off? And now you talk about 

 old stoves just because I won't go back to wide 

 frames without top-bars when the length of the 

 hive fits them. 



Let me give a bit of testimony that has some 

 bearing. One of the veterans, whose opinion 

 I'm sure you would respect, writes, "Section- 

 holders are far inferior to properly constructed 

 T supers, and I congratulate you for voicing 

 the fact." Another man writes, "I got the 

 section-holders because Root said they were the 

 best. I had used T supers in old Simplicity; 

 but when they said section-holders — why, sec- 

 tion-holders it was. But I must say I was never 

 satisfied with them.. .... and I bought T 



