804 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Nov. 1! 



corner, I whispered in his ear, " Schoolma'ams?" 

 "Yes, schoolmoms," said he, in a stage, 

 whisper, "both on 'em; sistern; one teaches 

 our school; the other, the one over in Grimes 

 Canyon. I tell yer, that oldest one, the one 

 that teaches our school, has the most sassafras 

 about her, though." 



Partner caught the word "schoolmom," and 

 it seemed to electrify him at once. I was again 

 in a state of consternation; and, while he was 

 frantically trying to dry all sides of his body at 

 once, I felt greatly relieved to see the school- 

 ma'ams retire to an inner room; the girl with a 

 sassafras reputation brought up the rear in 

 good order. A sly word to our host, and he 

 kept them corraled in that obscure portion of 

 the house until we departed early the next 

 morning. 



Our Missourian had at one time been a bee- 

 keeper to the extent of a hundred colonies. He 

 said that the locality was too cold and windy, 

 and he could get but little honey, and so gave 

 up business. I reflected upon the matter, and 

 came to the conclusion that a man who owned 

 several hundred head of cattle, and could not 

 bring down from the hills one cow to provide 

 milk for his numerous youngsters, would not 

 succeed with bees in the best of pasturage. He 

 lacked what he applied to the schoolma'am — 

 sassafras. 



THE T SUPER VS. THE SECTION-HOLDEK 

 DEVICE. 



AN EXCHANGE OF LAST SHOTS. 



By Dr. C. C. Miller. 



I may as well confess, Mr. Editor, that you 

 have made on page 517 a better plea for the sec- 

 tion-holder than 1 supposed was possible; and I 

 am much obliged to you for putting your plea 

 in definite, orderly shape. I'll try to accept the 

 truth that is given, and show, if I can, wherein 

 there may be error. 



Your first argument is one that should have 

 weight; and if you find a large number using 

 section-holders or modifications of them be- 

 cause, after trying both, they prefer them to T 

 supers, that should make a heavy score in favor 

 of section -holders. At the same time, it must 

 be remembered that one modification of the sec- 

 tion-holder (the wide frame) is a good deal old- 

 er than the T super, and many an-, using it who 

 have probably never tried the latter. Indeed, I 

 suppose there are many who have never tried 

 either of them, and are, perhaps, wondering 

 why we are quarreling as to which is the better 

 of two articles, neither of which they would 

 Ijiave for their own use. 



You make six distinct claims as to the superi- 

 ority of the section- holder. I'll take them in 

 order: 



In No. 1 you say, "In some localities it is de- 

 sirable to shift the outside row of sections to the 



center, and vice iiersa.'" I think that isn't true. 

 Now, mind you, I'm not saying you're a liar, 

 only I don't believe it is true, just as I don't be- 

 lieve some of the other things you say, although 

 you may be right and I wrong. And this brings 

 up a proper subject upon which to have light 

 thrown. We ought lo know whether it is or is 

 not desirable to have sections change places. It 

 is possible that I may be convinced— and. what 

 is more to the point, that others may be con- 

 vinced — that, in certain places, it's a good thing 

 to jump sections. If you've got any light, turn 

 it on. At present. No. 1, I think, stands "not 

 proven." If that point be proven, I'll go far- 

 ther than you, and say that the section-holder 

 is well fitted for such interchanging, and the T 

 super isn't fitted for it at all. 



No. 2 stands. I'd rather have fewer loose 

 pieces than the T super has. 



No. 3 is a case of special pleading that won't 

 stand; for we're not talking about the abuse 

 but the proper use of things; and you admit 

 that, with proper use, sections are square in T 

 supers. I can prove by your own words that 

 the slats on which sections rest in section- 

 holders will sag, and I think you know that T 

 tins do not sag. That makes it so that proper 

 use will result in none but square sections in 

 the T super, and at lea«t some sections a little 

 out of square in the section- holder. 



No. 4 I'm willing to admit, in plain Roman 

 letters; but when you call the advantage im- 

 portant, in italics, that's carrying it too far. 



No. 5 is another case of special pleading mix- 

 ed with what I believe to be erroneous state- 

 ment. I very much doubt that the great ma- 

 jority of bee-keepers put sections od the mar- 

 ket unscraped. Perhaps a better way to put it 

 is to say that I think the majority of sections 

 put on the market are scraped. Even if what 

 you say were true, it's not the right thing to 

 tell a Vteginner he should u.-e an inferior article 

 because it best fits careless and slovenly bee- 

 keepers; for no le^s an authority than the A B C 

 says, "In order to make sections present a clean 

 marketable appearance, all propolis should be 

 scraped off." 



, But this difference you are speaking of, be it 

 more or le.-s, is only on the edges of the section; 

 and the important part to scrape and have 

 clean is the top^ and I suppose you would hard- 

 ly say there is any difference as to tops in the 

 two supers. 



No. t) contains a view that you may be excus- 

 ed for holding, on account of your relying on 

 antiquated authorities. Allow me to lay my 

 modesty aside long enough to say that the man 

 who wrote "A Year among the Bees" didn't 

 know as much about producing comb honey as 

 I do; and he didn't know the best way to engi- 

 neer a T super. None of that complicated ma- 

 chinery of which you speak is used except a 

 single board as a follower to push out the sec- 



