1896 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



855 



Sec. 7, Art. VI., needs a complete revision. If 

 there can be collected no more than the regular 

 annual dues, without a majority vote of all the 

 members of the Union, why talk about calling 

 for or making extra assessments ? 



If expensive annual meetings are to be held, 

 there must of necessity be a limit to the liabili- 

 ty of the Union for their expenses, or it will soon 

 be bankrupt. I fully concur in Dr. Mason's re- 

 marks in Gleanings, on p. (570, when he says, 

 " This country of ours is too large " to warrant 

 annual meetings and expensive personal repre- 

 sentation. If it is attempted to make it repre- 

 sentative it will fail unless the Union pays the 

 expenses of the delegates; and if the Union 

 pays the expenses of the delegates, then it will 

 have but little money left (if any) to pay for its 

 only legitimate work — the defense of its mem- 

 bers in their legal rights when unlawfully as- 

 sailed by ignorance, prejudice, and malice. 



The whole thing is so incongruous and incom- 

 plete that it seems necessary to refer it back to 

 the next convention at Itufifalo, for revision. 

 Before it is in proper shape to present to the 

 " National Bee-keepers' Union " it needs a 

 thorough overhauling and reconstruction ; and 

 as the convention considered it section by sec- 

 tion, and then adopted it, no one now can have 

 the right to alterits language and requirements. 

 There is, therefore, nothing left for its advo- 

 cates now to do but to await the action of the 

 convention next year; at least, so it seems to — 

 Yours for every progressive step, 



Thomas G. Newman, 



General Manager Nat. Bee-keepers' Union. 



[I asked Dr. Mason, chairman of the amal- 

 gamation committee appointed at Lincoln, and 

 who in fact prepared the original draft of the 

 Constitution, to reply, and here it is: — Ed.] 



Friend Root:— Our friend Mr. Thomas" G. 

 Newman has kindly sent me a copy of what he 

 calls " Criticism on the Constitution;" and in 

 a letter with which it was inclosed he says he 

 has mailed copies " to all the bee-papers, and a 

 lively discussion should be the result if they 

 publish it." I have no doubt they w^ill publish 

 it, and perhaps a lively discussion of his criti- 

 cism " will be the result.'' 



His criticism is addressed " To the Officers 

 and Members of the North American Bee-keep- 

 ers' Association;" but as there is no such asso- 

 ciation, I presume he means the " United 

 States Bee-keepers' Union;" and as an officer 

 of the Union I should like to have a hand in 

 helping to making the discussion on his " criti- 

 cism " a little bit '"lively," and try to correct 

 some of his misapprehensions. 



After the constitution was adopted at Lin- 

 coln, it became my duty, as secretary of the 

 U. S. B. K. U., to notify the Advisory Board of 

 the N. B. K. U. of the action taken; and in order 

 to hasten matters I asked the editor of the 

 American Bee Journal, who was to Dublish the 



proceedings at the Lincoln convention, to put 

 the constitution and the motion " that we re- 

 quest the Advisory Board of the National Bee- 

 keepers' Union to put this constitution to a vote 

 of the members of that Union at their next an- 

 nual election, for their adoption or rejection," 

 in type as soon as possible, and send me at once 

 enough proofs for each of the Advisory Board, 

 which he very kindly did. 



I at once sent them to the Secretary of the 

 Advisory Board. Mr. Newman, and wrote him 

 in substance that"] sincerely hope the mea- 

 sure will pass, and I hope you will hurry the 

 matter up as rapidly as possible, and get it in 

 the bee-journals so that we can have time to 

 discuss it before the annual election in Janu- 

 ary." It is more than probable that I asked 

 him to make such suggestions as he might 

 think best; but it was not sent him for the pur- 

 pose of criticism; and as I had before sent him 

 a copy with a similar request, and as In reply 

 he made but one suggestion, I had no thought 

 of his taking upon himself the responsibility of 

 refusing to present the matter to the Advisory 

 Board, and "refer it back to the next conven- 

 tion at Buffalo;" so in all kindness and candor, 

 and with the best of intentions, as with Mr. 

 Newman, I will try to point out what, to me, 

 seem to be some of the " incongruities " of his 

 "criticism." 



The constitution of the N. B. K. U., in Arts. 

 III. and v., provides who shall be members, 

 and what officers it shall have, what their du- 

 ties shall be, how they shall be chosen, and 

 how long they shall hold their position; but 

 it makes no provision as to when the officers 

 are to be chosen. Now, if the N. B. K. U. 

 can make such a grand success with such 

 provisions in its constitution, what can possibly 

 be the harm in putting similar but more com- 

 plete provisions in the constitution of the U. S. 

 B. K. U.? and if it, as Mr. Newman says, shows 

 "incongruities" and lack of "completeness," 

 what shall be said of the lack of " complete- 

 ness " of the constitution of the N. B. K. U., in 

 the framing of which, I believe, but don't 

 knoiv, he took a leading part ? 



The aim in formulating the new constitution 

 was to in no way cripple or hinder, but, rather, 

 to increase the scope and efficiency of the work 

 of the Union; and its constitution was studied, 

 and its provisions incorporated in the new 

 wherever it seemed advisable, never dreaming 

 that the constitution of the N. B. K. U. was so 

 " incongruous " and so lacking in " consistency 

 and completeness." 



He says that " Article V. creates an Execu- 

 tive Committee, but nowhere are the duties and 

 powers of that committee defined." Well, well ! 

 did you ever? I wonder if he read the constitu- 

 tion before writing his "criticism." If he did, 

 he could hardly fall to notice that Sec. 3, Art. V., 

 very distinctly defines one of the duties of that 



