GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Jan. 1. 



some substitute, from J. H. Martin (Rambler). 

 We enjoy his writings and want them contin- 

 ued." 



Mr. Martin, for various reasons, has decided 

 to settle down "in some lovely spot in Califor- 

 nia,'' and keep bees for all there is in them. 

 He has traveled thousands of miles for Glean- 

 ings, and now desires a rest. I am happy to 

 state, however, that he is "hatching up a new 

 scheme" that I think will prove, perhaps, as 

 interesting, if not more so, as his Rambles of 

 old. I have no doubt, too, that, after the busy 

 season, his old yearnings for outings will come 

 back, and another rambling-tour will be taken, 

 the result of which will be given to the readers 

 of Gleanings in his usual style. I said he was 

 hatching up a new scheme. Gleanings never 

 makes a business of telling very much before- 

 hand what it proposes to do, except in cases 

 where our plans are so fully matured as to be 

 practically under way. So I'll not say more at 

 this time. 



THAT "everlasting FOOTNOTE." 



OuB answers to articles have sometimes been 

 referred to as above in a connection that implies 

 that they are written for the express purpose of 

 counteracting what was said in the article just 

 preceding. If our readers will take careful 

 notice, they will see that it is seldom that I take 

 occasion to disagree with or criticise the state- 

 ments of a writer; and I do it then only to cor- 

 rect what, in our judgment, I consider to be an 

 error, or, at least, something if unchallenged 

 that would lead only to expensive mistakes. 

 Sometimes a writer proposes a plan that some 

 of us have tried to our sorrow; and, obviously, 

 it is to the betterment of apiculture that the re- 

 sult of that test be made public. The inain ob- 

 ject of the footnote in our columns is to enlarge 

 upon something that is already stated, or to em- 

 phasize that which needs more prominence than 

 is given in the article. 



Several times in years past we have asked 

 our readers if they would prefer to have the 

 footnote omitted. But a flood of postals always 

 poured in, saying, "No, no, Bro. Root! keep 

 them going right along." Some say they read 

 them first, and then the article. Others have 

 said the articles would not be of much value to 

 them unless they received the editorial indorse- 

 ment. Out of hundreds of cards in the past, 

 giving various sorts of expressions, I think we 

 have received scarcely one requesting their dis- 

 continuance. 



Now please don't let any one get the impres- 

 sion that when the footnote is omitted from any 

 article that this article does not receive our in- 

 dorsement. On the contrary, it is complete in 

 itself, and nothing that I can say will emphasize 

 or add to it. 



THE HONEY BUSINESS IN GOVERNMENT BUL- 

 LETINS. 



In the last Report of the Secretary of Agri- 



culture, bearing date 1895, under the head of 

 "Subsidiary Farm Products," a little" informa- 

 tion " is offered in regard to honey. The per- 

 son who wrote up the subject was not, evident- 

 ly, very well versed in apicultural phraseology. 

 For instance, he uses such sentences as these: 

 " All honeys sent to England are strained, ex- 

 cept a nominal amount that reaches there in 

 the comb from California." And again: "The 

 Department has knowledge that, some years 

 ago, a large honey-maker in California found 

 in China a profitable market for some 20 tons of 

 honey annually." Again, " In this, as in every 

 other branch of industry, only the makes of the 

 best, most genuine products, can secure a per- 

 manent, profitable trade." The italics in the 

 above are mine. No reputable bee-keeper 

 " makes " honey, but he does " produce " it. It is 

 evident that the writer did not intend to throw 

 discredit on the industry; but such phraseology 

 would rather imply that his knowledge of the 

 business was comparatively limited— too limit- 

 ed, in fact, to be able to write intelligently for a 

 government bulletin. His statements as to 

 facts, also, are more or less wide of the mark. 



It is to be regretted that there is so much of 

 this kind of work from the hands of our govern- 

 ment officials, especially as all needed informa- 

 tion in regard to honey, or any thing else, can 

 be so easily procured from sources which are 

 unquestionably authentic. It is too often the 

 case that the government agent gets his posi- 

 tion through " political pull," when he is utter- 

 ly incompetent. I am pleased to note, however, 

 that the President Has recently put more offices 

 under the civil service rules. Every official 

 should be obliged to pass a rigid examination; 

 and, when a competent man is found he should 

 be kept, independently of party changes. 



Some one has recently asked if we could not 

 have a distinctly apicultural bulletin, issued by 

 the general government. Well, here we have 

 it, and it is in marked contrast to some of those 

 of which I have just been speaking. 



A 120-PAGE BEE-BOOK FOR FREE DISTRIBU- 

 TION. 



I HAVE been aware for some time that Mr. 

 Frank Bentoni who has been in charge of the 

 apiarian work of the division of the Department 

 of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, was prepar- 

 ing a bulletin on the subject of bees. A few 

 days ago I was surprised, and very agreeably 

 so, to receive the advance proof sheets of so 

 large a text-book from the Government. Bulle- 

 tin No. 1, entitled "The Honey-bee: a Manual 

 of Instruction in Apiculture. By Frank Ben- 

 ton." There are in all 120 pages of bee-matter, 

 profusely illustrated. Some of the cuts are 

 drawn from other sources, but the majority of 

 them are original. I have had only time to 

 glance over the work, but have reviewed it 

 carefully enough to say that it is practical and 



