1896 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



take in the United States and Canada. Under- 

 stand that I do not say that, while it was inter- 

 national in name, the society was a fizzle, but 

 thai the tnjlim to be international was a fizzle. 

 As North American it did well considering its 

 limited functions, if I may use that term, and 

 our great geographical distances. If it had 

 been distinctly national I am rather of the 

 opinion that it would have done better still, 

 because our geographical distances are too 

 great even then. Now, what riles me is that 

 you place " trying to cover one or more coun- 

 tries " and a " poor fizzle" together, when you 

 know [ meant one was the natural sequence of 

 the other. 



As I said in that same editorial to which you 

 refer on page 609, I am not now, nor was I then, 

 particular whether the new organization should 

 be national or international, or whether it should 

 be a combination of the two societies, or a prod- 

 uct of one; namely, the Bee keepers' Union. 

 The most I cared about, and do care now, is 

 something that will be accepted by che majori- 

 ty. If that majority desires the amalgamation 

 of the two into one society that shall be inter- 

 national, then I am with it heart and soul; 

 but I shall /ceJ just the same that the chances 

 of success will be better to have it distinctly 

 national. Why, we have not now. and never 

 have had, a national bee-keepers' association 

 in my recollection. The Ontario bee-keepers 

 have a society that is practically national; at 

 least, it does not step out of the border lines of 

 its own country. The British Bee-keepers' As- 

 sociation is another sample. Both of these 

 national societies are a success in every sense of 

 the word. Are we so small in numbers that we 

 must needs go to other countries for support? 

 You will remember that, three or four years 

 ago, the bee-keepers of the United States want- 

 ed to have the North American incorporated, 

 and some of the leaders in Canada opposed it so 

 bitterly that those of us who desired peace ad- 

 vocated dropping incorporation. The new Bee- 

 keepers' Union must necessarily be incorporat- 

 ed, for how can it sue or bo sued, and how can 

 it prosecute honey adulterators unless incorpor- 

 ated ? What is to prevent the Canadians from 

 objecting on the same grounds as before? I 

 am well aware that not all of them did so ob- 

 jec*^. I cite this only to show that there would 

 be local differences, and that it might be easier 

 to have one distinctly national ocganization. If 

 the Canadians desire to have a protective so- 

 ciety, they could very easily, by a slight modifi- 

 cation in their constitution, hitch to their pres- 

 ent organization a protective union — one that 

 would do the work that the Bee-keepers' Union 

 of this country has done and can do in the fu- 

 ture. 



Now, having had " my say " in favor of a na- 

 tional organization, I am willing to drop the 

 idea entirely, and take in Canada, if it seems 

 more feasible and practicable to the majority 

 of bee-keepers. As to amalgamation, I do not 

 care much either way whether our new socie- 

 ty is made out of two or one organization. Per- 

 sonally I was in favor of amalgamation at the 

 very start, and am yet.— Ed.] 



THE UNION AND KEORGANIZATION. 



TRIENNIAL MEETINGS ; TWO CLASSES OF ME.M- 

 BER.S. 



By Geo. W. Brodbeck. 



Mr. Editor:— I notice that Dr. Miller, in one 

 of his Straws, Aug. 15, propounds the'following 

 question: "And do I understand you to say, 



Bro. B., that you now want to kill the Union 

 and get up something else? If so, just tell us 

 wnat it is, and if you've got something better I 

 am with you." 



The question on amalgamation is now of not 

 much interest; so, concerning this, a reply is 

 not necessary, for the whole voices itself in the 

 self-evident fact that we all now favor a dis- 

 tinctive national organization that will repre- 

 sent the interests of the bee-keepers of the 

 whole United States; so my reply is in refer- 

 ence to the Union. 



In my article in Gleanings and in the^jner- 

 ica?i Bee Journal, which appeared some time 

 ago, proposing a national association, I at that 

 time favored a separate and distinct organiza- 

 tion from our present Union; but where you, 

 Mr. Editor, with the indorsement of Mr. York 

 and others, favored the reorganization of the 

 Union, I too began to realize the advisability of 

 utilizing by enlargement the tried and tested 

 foundation of the Union in the establishment of 

 just such an organization as we are in need of. 

 So you see, doctor, my object is not "to kill," 

 but to build up; and while some of us may dif- 

 fer in regard to minor details I believe in the 

 main we can agree, and I for one am dispo.sed 

 to give due credit to all who have been inter- 

 ested in this subject and in their attempts to 

 solve the problem of the general good of the 

 bee-keeping fraternity of the United States; 

 and I trust that the presentation of the follow- 

 ing propositions of how best to attain this ob- 

 ject will not be considered presumptuous, but 

 as coming from one who is aiming to add his 

 mite toward its accomplishment; and by the 

 careful sifting of all the sands presented we 

 may glean sufficient gold with which to build. 

 • The one great obstacle to contend with in the 

 endeavor to secure State, Territorial, or sec- 

 tional representation to a bee-keepers' congress 

 is the expense and loss of time to those who 

 would be forced to travel a long distance; and 

 unless we can devise ways and means to defray 

 and distribute this expense, all of our efforts to 

 secure a representative assembly will result in 

 failure. 



The defensive feature of the Union is anoth- 

 er, for some favor it and some do not. There 

 are some others; but as I desire to be brief I 

 will present my suggestions for overcoming 

 these; for by the accomplishment of this we no 

 doubt can remove others. 



To satisfy and induce a like interest in a na- 

 tional association I would divide the member- 

 ship into two classes: 



1. The protective class. 



2. The non- protective class. 



The first class would be those whom the asso- 

 ciation would defend in their legal rights, the 

 same as the Union does at present; and the 

 second class would be those who would share 

 all other benefits except the above. The mem- 



