1896 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



669 



promise— K inch wide. We have a good many 

 combs built down to bars of this width; and in 

 no case that I remember have the bees built 

 past them. If the bars were 1^^ or 1^^ wide 

 they would be almost sure to leave a bee-space 

 between the comb and the bottom-bar. This 

 would be a waste of valuable space, besides be- 

 ing a good place for the queen to hide. — Ed.] 



THE NEW BEE-KEEPERS' SOCIETY. 

 SHALL IT BE NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL? 



By Dr. A. B. Mason. 



Every little while I see statements in the dif- 

 ferent bee-journals that "'kinder rile " me; 

 and if I could have the writers close by me 

 when I first read their statements I'd make 

 them believe that they had 1 — li — lie — mis- 

 represented something. 



On page 609 of Gleanings for Aug. 15 I find 

 this statement. In speaking of amalgamation, 

 the editor says: "Well, then I would make it 

 national; and I am inclined to think that the 

 society whose operations are confined to one 

 country would be more easily managed, and 

 could do more good, than one that tries to cov- 

 er one or more countries and makes a poor 

 fizzle of it after all." I never was an editor, so 

 I don't know how they do their thinking; but 

 an ordinary mortal wouldn't have to think at 

 all to know " that the society whose operations 

 are confined to one country . . could do more 

 good than one that tries to cover one or more 

 countries and makes a poor flzzle of it," unless 

 " the society whose operations are confined to 

 one country " should also make •' a poor fizzle of 

 it." 



The editor's statement seems to imply that a 

 society that tries to cover more than one coun- 

 try would prove a failure and make " a poor 

 fizzle;" but so far as the N. A. B. K. A. and the 

 N. A. B. K. Union are concerned it is not true. 

 Until 1893 the Bee-keepers' Union was known 

 as the N. A. B. K. U., and included in its terri- 

 tory "all of the United States and Canada." 

 That year the constitution was changed to the 

 "National Bee-keepers' Union," and Canada 

 was left out; but Articles of the constitution 

 provides that " any person may become a mem- 

 ber," etc., and in his report for 1894 the General 

 Manager says, "The National Bee-keepers' 

 Union knows no dividing lines of States, Prov- 

 inces, or Territories. . . The Union defends 

 its members . . no matter where they hap- 

 pen to reside." So the Union covers more than 

 one country; and if it is a " fizzle " it is a pret- 

 ty healthy one; and if it continues to " fizzle" 

 in the future as in the past it will be a long 

 time before there will be any " flies on it." 



Again, the editor says, "But as some of our 

 friends have objected strenuously to amalgam- 

 ation, it has .seemed to me that it would be bet- 



ter to drop that scheme and make the Union 

 such an organization as the great mass of us 

 desire." Now, for one I'm not in favor of drop- 

 ping the amalgamation scheme because some 

 are opposed to it. Ever since amalgamation 

 was first proposed I have been opposed to it 

 unless it could be accomplished without in any 

 way interfering with the usefulness of the 

 Union; and in all 1 have seen in the bee-jour- 

 nals, and in private correspondence, I have not 

 seen a good reason given for not carrying out 

 the scheme. For the past four months I have 

 been corresponding with all the bee-keepers, 

 from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in Canada, 

 who have said anything about amalgamation 

 or organizing a new society, that I have seen in 

 the bee-journals, trying to get them to put 

 their ideas in the shape of a constitution, and 

 have succeeded in getting but three— one each 

 from California, Illinois, and New York, and 

 all of them are for a new representative organ- 

 ization. I have studied over the matter a good 

 deal and have come to the conclusion that I 

 am in favor of amalgamation, and believe that 

 it can be accomplished, and in such away as 

 not in the least to interfere with the usefulness 

 of the Union, but rather be a benefit to it, and 

 also be a benefit to more bee-keepers than are 

 now in touch with it, and at the same time be 

 a benefit to the annual meeting, that can be 

 held the same as is now done by the N. A. B. 

 K. A. 



It is usually much easier to say what ought 

 to be done than to tell how to do it; but some 

 of the most active in our fraternity, besides 

 members of the amalgamation committee, have 

 been comparing notes in the matter, and others 

 will contribute their quota toward evolving a 

 scheme by which amalgamation, if possible, 

 may be accomplished, and the result will prob- 

 ably be a report at the Lincoln meeting, from 

 the amalgamation committee, that will be ac- 

 ceptable to both the National Bee-keepers' 

 Union and the N. A. B. K. A. 



" Again, some object to having the new or- 

 ganization international," says the editor. 

 Well, what if they do? Some people "object" 

 to almost any thing, without giving a good rea- 

 son for so doing. We've had a man in our U. 

 S. Congress who was, and is still, known as the 

 "great objector;" but I don't believe he's a 

 bee-keeper. I can't see any real objection to 

 having the new organization international. 

 Canadians have been members of both organiz- 

 tions, or of the Union, from their first organiza- 

 tion, and they have behaved pretty well. To 

 bo sure, they " brag and bluster " sometimes, 

 but " we uns " have got used to that, and don't 

 mind it. They are big-hearted; and if they are 

 a little egotistical, like their neighbors, they 

 mean all right. 



To be sure, they " are away ahead of us in 

 having a flourishing society," and well they 



