40 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



less it can be accomplished without in any 

 way injuring the efficiency and usefulness of 

 the Union; and the sentiment among bee- 

 keepers, in the direction of the union of the 

 two organizations, had become so marked, 

 that the N. A. at its convention at Toronto 

 in Sept. 1895, voted, unanimously, to appoint 

 a committee of seven to formulate some 

 plan for the accomplishment of amalgama- 

 tion, and it was desired that the committee 

 should do its work and report through the 

 bee journals in time so that the N. U. could 

 vote on the adoption or rejection of the pro- 

 posed plan at its election of officers in 

 Jan. 189(5. 



The committee organized at Toronto by 

 choosing Mr. T. G. Newman as chairman, 

 and instructed him to formulate a plan for 

 the purpose of amalgamation. This was 

 done by Mr. Newman and submitted to 

 the different members of the committee, 

 I suppose, and after some correspondence, 

 and the publication of the plan in the bee 

 journals, it proved to be so " incongruous 

 and incomplete" that the measure was 

 allowed to "die" in the hands of the 

 chairman. 



Last spring some of the members of the 

 committee, with the aid of other bee-keep- 

 ers who were interested in having the wish 

 of the Toronto convention carried out, for- 

 mulated a new constitution, a printed copy 

 of which was sent to each member of the 

 amalgamation committee, and a goodly 

 number of others, for criticism and sug- 

 gestions. Five other constitutions ( one of 

 which occupied twelve fools-cap pages ) were 

 also drawn up and each without knowing of 

 the other's work, and all six, with all the 

 criticisms received from those to whom 

 copies were sent, were submitted to the con- 

 vention at Lincoln last October. These 

 were all referred to a committee of three, 

 and all the criticisms and suggestions were 

 considered by the committee, and pat in 

 shape. The committee then invited about 

 fifteen of the leading members of the con- 

 vention to meet with them for the purpose 

 of perfecting the measure. What the com- 

 mittee had prepared was summitted to 

 those present, and was thoroughly gone 

 over, section by section, and unanimously 

 approved. It was afterwards considered 

 by the convention in the same way and 

 thoroughly discussed, and finally was 

 unanimously adopted by the Association, 

 and this is the production that has been 



styled by one of the leading members as 

 " incongruous and incomplete, and crude." 



Tlie convention then voted to request the 

 Advisory Board of the National Bee Keep- 

 ers' Union to submit it to a vote of the 

 Union for its adoption or rejection; and it 

 seems to me that that the Board has failed 

 to CBrry out the request of the United States 

 Bee Keepers' Union. To be sure, the new 

 constitution was printed with the General 

 Manager's report, but the members of the 

 N. U. were not requested to vote for or 

 against its adoption or rejection. On the 

 ballots for the election of officers there was 

 printed something like this : " For Amalga- 

 mation " and "Againpt Amalgamation." 

 " For amendment to the Constitution, " and 

 " Against amendment to the Constitution." 

 Nothing in the request of the U. S. B. K. U. 

 or in the constitution itself, was said about 

 " amalgamaion, " nor about amending the 

 constitution of the N. U., and it seems to 

 me that the proper thing to have done 

 would have been to state the matter plainly, 

 and honestly, and then have had printed on 

 the ballot, " For the Adoption of the Con- 

 stitution" and "Against the Adoption of 

 the constitution. " As I sit and think the 

 matter over, time after time, I become 

 more and more annoyed at the action of 

 the Advisory Board, six of whom are earnest 

 and active Christian men. Three of these 

 six, with the General Ma' ager, must have 

 couseuted to the publication in the report, 

 at the expense of the union, of an unjust, 

 and uncalled for "criticism," refusing to 

 allow the other side to speak in self-defense. 



Supposing a case were in court, involving 

 the personal interest of nearly three hun- 

 dred individuals, and that Thos. G. New- 

 man represented the prosecution, or plain- 

 tif and that the Hon. R. L. Taylor repre- 

 sented the defense. Supposing the attorney 

 for the plaintif states ttie case to the jury of 

 two hundred and eighty-two freeholders in 

 his own way, right or wrong, and the judge 

 should absolutely refuse to let the attorney 

 for the defense say one word for his side of 

 the case. Does any honest, sane individual, 

 for one moment, suppose that the legal fra- 

 ternity, backed by every honest citizen, 

 wouldn't set up aery of condemnation, and 

 make it so pointed and efficient that it would 

 sweep the dishonest judge from his seat ? 



Mr. Newman has very truthfully said, 

 " As there is no necessity for the existence 

 of two organizations to accomplish the work 



