1896 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



467 



It makes no difference to me, and I guess not to 

 any one else, what we organize, so that it is what 

 bee-keepers want. 



Italics mine again. The bee-keepers of this 

 country want, if they want any thing, a nation- 

 al association; and the easiest way, in my 

 estimation, is to make the Union a deliberative 

 body, having annual meetings. Let the old 

 North American stand as it is. 



BEE-PARALYSIS. 



The question Is asked in the Southland 

 Queen as to when and how the name " bee_- 

 paralysis" originated for a certain kind of dis- 

 ease that afflicts bees, causing them to become 

 swollen, black, and shiny, and to exhibit a pal- 

 sied or trembling motion. When our A B C of 

 Bee Culture was first written its author de- 

 scribed this disease as above, and then said he 

 had no name for it. For a time it was called 

 the "nameless bee-disease." This, certainly, 

 was a misnomer, and a discredit to those of us 

 who help to make our special nomenclature. 



I called Prof. Cook's attention to the matter, 

 and asked him to give us a name from his 

 standpoint as an entomologist that would be ap- 

 propriate and at the same time indicative of the 

 real symptoms and characteristics of the dis- 

 ease. He suggested "bee-paralysis." Liking 

 the appellation I incorporated it in all our own 

 bee-keeping literature so far as possible, instead 

 of the old or " nameless " name that had been 

 used formerly. The late editions of our ABC 

 book, and late volumes of Gleanings, have all 

 made use of the new name, and I see it is now 

 adopted by the other bee journals. 



This same disease was called by Mr. Cheshire 

 Bacillus Gaytoni, after Miss Gayton, who first 

 called his attention to this peculiar disease; 

 but at that time we were not aware tluit bee- 

 paralysis and Bacillus Gaytoni wore probably 

 one and the same; but we no.v have good rea- 

 son to believe that the' arc, fiom descriptions 

 that have come to us from across the water, as 

 they tally so clos. iy with what we now know 

 to be and call boc; paralysis. 



CO"MMISSION MEN WHO WILL NOT ANSWEK 

 LETTERS. 



Two or three times producers have complain- 

 ed to us that commission house so and so would 

 not answer letters. In one instance the bee- 

 keeper, whom I will call Mr. A., some time last 

 October sent along a consignment of honey— to 



& Co. Some two months rolled by, and 



Mr. A. wrote us that he had not heard any 

 thing about the honey. We replied that the 

 firm was perfectly good, well quoted, and had 

 always dealt satisfactorily with us, and that 

 we had no doubt they would render in due time 

 a satisfactory account of salts. Time went on, 

 and Mr A. wrote us again, saying that he could 

 get nothing out of the firm— that they would 

 not even answer his letters. We wrote this 



time, asking them to kindly look into the mat- 

 ter and write to Mr. A. Two more weeks went 

 on, and still no response, either to Mr. A. or 

 ourselves. Again we wrote, as kindly as we 

 knew how, calling their attention to this whole 

 transaction, and mentioning the fact that we 

 had previously written, and asked them to look 

 up Mr. A.'s case at once, or we should be con- 

 strained to withdraw their quotations from our 

 Honey Column. This time we "raised the 

 wind." We received a prompt but curt letter 

 in reply, pointing to their many years of suc- 

 cessful business career, and that they had all 

 this time been able to conduct their business 

 "without outside interference," and that they 

 would thank us to mind our own business, and 

 "forbear threatening." They closed up by 

 stating that they had sent Mr. A. a full account 

 of sales, with a check covering the same. 



In our reply we simply stated that we fur- 

 nished thom, and all other commission firms, 

 space in our Honey Column free of charge, and 

 that the mere fact that we accepted their quo- 

 tations was a guarantee on our part to our 

 readers that we considered their firm, along 

 with the rest, responsible and A No. 1; we 

 further stated that, as we accepted their adver- 

 tisement, and felt in a measure responsible, we 

 had necessarily to come in as a third party to 

 the extent that, if they did not attend to Mr. 

 A.'s case, we should simply have to drop their 

 qiiotations. This last is evidently what they 

 call a "threat." 



We hope our readers will keep us fully in- 

 formed as to the firms that will not answer 

 letters in regard to the honey sent them. The 

 commission houses who are quoting honey for 

 us are entirely responsible and. so far as we 

 know, honorable; but if any of them do not 

 like our "interference," all they have to do is 

 to withhold their quotations from us. 



As publishers of a bee-journal, we feel that 

 it is our duty to champion the rights of the 

 producer, and in all cases to stand unflinching- 

 ly for the right, no matter whether it favors 

 bee- keepers or commission men. Where we 

 have been appealed to as referee, we have de- 

 cided in a few cases in favor of the commission 

 man instead of the bee-keeper. 



SELLING HONEY ON COMxMISSIQN; QUOTING THE 

 MARKET TOO HIGH, ETC. 



We have run across one or two instances 

 where commission houses have been quoting 

 two or three cents a pound higher in their 

 market quotations than they actually render to 

 the bee-keeper in their account of sales. Of 

 course, the latter complain, and justly so. 



We realize the fact that it is not always pos- 

 sible for a commission merchant to sell honey 

 fof what he thiulix he can; but when that com- 

 mission merchant makes his quotations in the 

 bee-journals about two cents higher than the 



