iHlt BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



43 



As no patents were j^rauted on foauda- 

 tiou mills, I am not able to give, without 

 much study, the circumstances of their 

 iuveutiou. but I associate Mr. A. 1. Root 

 with their iutroductiou. His diary may be 

 full of accounts of his experiments in that 

 line, but, at that time, his position regard- 

 ing patents was such, of course, that he 

 would not have taken out one. 



Either the fact that side- walls were a ne- 

 cessity in making machine foundation, or 

 that side-walls had an economical value, at 

 once brought side-wall foundation to the 

 front. Various styles were brought out 

 embodying the side wall idea. 



The price of wax was no consideration 

 compared with the high and ready market 

 for honey, and the sales increased with its 

 nse. But a new phrase was introduced in- 

 to bee literature, viz., " Fish Bone, " and it 

 was admitted that the use of foundation for 

 comb honey was a kind of compromise — 

 not an unmixed blessing. Too much bees 

 ifa.r and not enough bees comb entered in- 

 to its construction. True, it was claimed 

 that the bees thinned the foundation and 

 made it as the natural comb. Still, the 

 "fishbone" was there. >(0 one ever dis- 

 covered what became of the wax so gnawed 

 or drawn out. It did not appear as waste 

 anywhere, and the general opinion prevails 

 that as the combs were of greater consistency 

 than those made entirely by the bees, that 

 the wax, though thinned and transposed, 

 still remained. 



It was no detriment to the brood combs, 

 but bee-keepers were ready to see that it 

 was not a benefit to surplus comb honey, 

 except in shaping the combs and determin- 

 ing the size of the cells. 



It now appears that the high side walls, 

 higher than ever, perhaps making founda- 

 tion Vj inch thick, are possible and desirable, 

 both for surplus and brood combs. What 

 will be the probable effect of such founda- 

 tion V Of course, in the brood frames it 

 will do no harm, but can the same be said 

 of comb surplus ? What will the consu- 

 mers say ? Will they not say " We had 

 ' fish bone ' now we havf fish bone com- 

 pounded. " Will it not increase the sale of 

 such honey as can be mixed? It behooves 

 bee keepers to take a careful view of the 

 subject. 



Fabwell, Mich. 



Feb. 11, 18!)7. 



Bee-Keepers' Review. 



PUBLISUED MONTHLY. 



W. Z._ HUTCHINSON. Editor and ProDrlelor. 



Terms :— SI. 00 a yoar in advance. Two copies 

 $1.90 ; three for $2.70 ; tivo for $4.00 ; ten or more, 

 ".') cents each. If it is desired to have the Revisw 

 stopped at the expiration of the time paid for, 

 please say so when subscribing, otherwise, it 

 will be continued. 



FLINT. MICHIGAN. FEB. 10. 1897. 



A Honey Leaflet is something that I at 

 one time fully expected to get out, but 

 troubles and other matters so pressed me 

 that I did not "get around to it. " I am 

 pleased to say, however, that the work has 

 been taken up by most capable hands, those 

 of Dr. C. C. Miller, and the A. I. Root Co., 

 is publishing the leaflet. 



" Notes From Foreign Bee Journals, " 

 and Hasty's " Condensed View of Current 

 Bee Writings, " are both absent this month. 

 They were both a little late in coming to 

 hand, and when they did come, there was 

 almost enough of other mattter up, and 

 that of matter that is very seasonable, that 

 of the new United States Bee-Keepers' 

 Union, and of the use of drawn combs in 

 sections and the new artificial comb, hence 

 it was thought best to let the articles of our 

 good friends Hasty and Thompson go over 

 until next month, especially as the Review 

 is behind and we wish to " catch up " as 

 soon as possible. 



Bee Joubnals have been born and lived 

 a short time ( some of them a long time) 

 and then died, and Dr. Miller thinks that 

 it is not kindness on the part ot other 

 journals to editorially notice the advent of a 

 new journal by praising it. That is, that 

 praise only stimulates the editor to go on 

 and spend more money in continuing its 

 publication when he might have stopped if 

 we only had told him that — that his journal 

 was no good. I can't agree with the Doctor. 

 Adverse criticism or even silence would be 

 looked on by the new journalist as simply 

 the result" of jealously. Besides, the new 

 comer sometimes out-lives and out-ranks 

 the older journal. To withold the usual 

 editorial notice will neither make nor mar 

 the new journal, nor prevent its editor from 



