TH^ B^K-KT5I5PKRS' REVlItW. 



325 



more than makes up for the increase in 

 the size of type. 



The paper used is heavier than has 

 been used h.eretofore, and white instead 

 of tinted. I did so :cis// to use rouj<h 

 in.stead of the .smooth, shiny, super-cal- 

 endered paper, and should have done so 

 were it not for one thint^, and that is, 

 that fine half-tone cuts cmmot be .satis- 

 factorily used on rough paper. Trinting 

 on a good quality of rough paper has 

 such a c/ea/i look and is so easily read — 

 it does not have that glistening surface 

 that reflects the light into the eyes. Rut 

 it was a choice between rough paper and 

 half-tone cuts, and the latter carried the 

 day — at present. 



I feel a wee bit proud of the picture of 

 a foul broody comb that appears as a 

 frontispiece. Mr. Thos. \\". Cowan, 

 editor of the Briti.sh Bee Journal, took 

 the photograph from which this cut was 

 made, and published it with a ])rief de- 

 scription of foul brood printed on the 

 back of the card; and he ver^- generously 

 allowed me to have a cut made from it 

 for use in the Review. Just how long 

 I shall continue this feature, of a fron- 

 tispiece, I don't know, but I have 

 have several photographs now on hand 

 that I expect to reproduce in that 

 manner. 



Of course, you have noticed that the 

 cover is much heavier than of old, that it 

 is of a diflferent color and printed in a 

 warm rich color — claret. 



Now friends, if these improvements 

 give you one-half of the pleasure that 

 they do me, you will be happy indeed. 



Perhaps }ou will think me .sentimen- 

 tal, and perhaj)s I am, but there was one 

 feature about this change that to me was 

 just a little .sad. and that was saying 

 good bye to the old type. I thought of 

 the mu.sic its click made in my ears when 

 it was being set up for the first issue of 

 the Review; of the much valuable in- 

 fonnation that it had printe<l f<jr my 

 brother bee-peepers; of the glimpses that 

 it had .sometimes given of the home-life 

 here at the home of the Review, of its 



joys and sorrows; as I thought of these 

 things it seemed almost like a .sacrilege 

 to dump page after page of it into an old 

 box to be sent off to the foundry where 

 it would be melted up. Then, as I nail- 

 ed down the cover, another thought came 

 to me : This old metal may have to pass 

 through the crucible, but it will come 

 forth bright and shinning and greatly 

 increased in value and usefulne.ss, and 

 1 fell to wondering if the firey trials that 

 come to some of us mortals might not be 

 needed in purifying and fitting us for a 

 more perfect future. And I .said good 

 bve to the old type once more with con- 

 siderable resignation. 



SOMK CHANGES THAT ARK IJKKLV TO UK 

 M.\DK IX SKCTIONS. 



It is "in the air" that some changes 

 are about to be made in our section honey 

 lioxes. The plain section, that the same 

 width all the wa^- around, is not new. 

 The late B. Taylor used and advocated 

 it; Mr. F. Danzenbaker advocated its use 

 and tried to get the Roots to adopt it and 

 to make them for him and they in turn 

 tried to dissuade him from it, and there 

 was a sort of compromi.se, in that he ad- 

 opted the one bee-way section, and in 

 those sections he last season produced 

 some of the fine-st comb honey that I ever 

 .saw. I had a case of it at the fairs and an 

 Iowa man paid me twenty cents a pound 

 for it to use in getting up an exhibit for 

 the coming Omaha fair. Mr. Danzen- 

 baker's surplus arrangement is such that 

 he can use plain sections, those with one 

 bee-wa)-, or the ordinary- old style of sec- 

 tien. Those who are interested in this 

 matter should send for his pam])hlet 

 " Facts About Bees. " By the way, Mr. 

 Matthews, of X. C. has .sent me an arti- 

 cle advocating one bee-way sections as 

 superior to the plain .section or old style. 

 I hoped to give it in this number of the 

 Review, but there wa.s not room. I will 

 try and give it in the Jan. No. 



But to return, the plain section has long 

 been advocated, but for .some reason it 



