}\)c (See-JKeepeps' peViecu 



A MONTHLY JOURNAL 



Devoted to tl^e Iqterests of Hoqey Producers. 



$L00 A YEAR, 



W. Z. HUTCHlNSOri, EditOP & PPop, 



VOL, V, FLINT, MICHIGAN, AUG. 10. 1892. 



NO. 8. 



The special topie of this issue is 



Smoke ar\6 Srr[okers, 



That of the next issue uiill be 



Feediqg and Feeders. 



Valuable Inventions Ought to be Patented 

 And the Patents Respected.— Adaptabil- 

 ity of Hard Wood Fuel for use in 

 The Bingham Smoker. 



T. F. BINGHAM. 



EAR Review— 

 (I like that ti- 

 tle.) As you are 

 aware, I contem- 

 plated writing an 

 article for (he Aug. 

 No. on fuel for '"di- 

 vided draft and 

 blast smokers," but 

 I am so well pleased 

 with the articles in 

 the July issue that I 

 trust tliHt yiju aud your readers will excuse 

 me. 



One thing I notice — and I do not say that 

 it encourages or discourages invention — 

 much clamor has been raised in bee papers 

 by different parties who think a benefited 

 people ought to remember their benefactors. 

 Mr. Langstroth does not have to claim 

 that he invented the movable frame, the 



shallow chamber or the bee space; yet many 

 hives are now sold that have nothing to rec- 

 ommend them except what Mr. Langstroth 

 invented, and the innocent purchaser knows 

 only the name of the vendor. 



Bingham, aud Bingham & Hetherington, 

 from down in the 'GO's until now, realizing 

 the value of legal record for the preserva- 

 tion of their bright ideas when embodied in 

 practical benefits, have, to avoid even the 

 question of invention, availed themselves of 

 American citizen's rights in the U. S. patent 

 office. 



I have never quite liked the fact that Mr. 

 Cory, the inventor of the cold blast smoker, 

 should have lost the credit of his invention. 

 It would have been better for him, also for 

 bee-keepers, if he had ran it through the 

 patent office. 



I had similar feelings when parties in 

 Canada and England made Bingham & 

 Hetherington honey knives and smokers and 

 called them by their own names — carrying 

 the false impression that they were the in- 

 ventors as well as the makers. In our own 

 country false claims frequently get a free 

 advertisement and bee-keepers are taken in. 

 Note the case of poor Mr. Crane who bought 

 a "basket full, " etc. 



Mr. Root carefully analyzed the principles 

 upon which smokers depend, and those who 

 read his article will find that he understood 

 the subject under discussion. 



His remark that the cut-off weakens the 

 blast in our smoker reminds me of the 

 first question Mr. Heddon asked upon being 



