522 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



X 



OY 



enjoy the luxurv of a term in the State prison. In 

 one of his circulars, issued in 1877 or '^8, be states 

 that his Arm will in May, 1878, remove 1,000 bee 

 stands to Sandusky City and start a large apiary for 

 the culture of queen bees, and if my information is 

 correct, he never moved a siriale stand there. This 

 bis: talk was to give him credit and importance and 

 make the public feel safe in sending- orders with the 

 money to him, when he intended, as his conduct 

 shows, to get the money and make no return for it. 

 Some timt- about the 18th of December, 1878, I sent 

 to Mitchell $13, for which he had agreed to send me 

 two '• honey extractors " and two farm rights and an 

 agency to sell territory. On the 22d of Hecember, 

 1878, he answered my letter, acknowledging- the re- 

 ceipt of the $115, and sent me the two rights and a 

 power to sell territory, but said that the Extractor 

 factory was shut down during the cold weather, but 

 would be open in three weeks, and he would send 

 them as soon as the factory was put to work. I 

 wrote to him about once or twice afterward and got 

 no reply from him, hut on the 30th of April, 1879, 1 

 got a letter from the firm of Ritchie, Costa Magna 

 & Co., of Indianapolis, who, it appears, were run- 

 ning tie Extractor factory, in which they stated 

 that so many comphunts had been made that they 

 did not want any orders sent to McDougall,who, they 

 said, had been manufacturing Extractors for Mitch- 

 ell; but that they tbcusrht I had long since received 

 my Extractors until they got my letters, and they 

 further stated that they would see that I got them 

 if they had to send to Paris for them. Since then I 

 have written several times to Mitchell, requesting 

 him to refund the money, to none of which I have 

 gotten any answer. 



I should like to know if Mitchell has a patent right 

 to his improved modes of swindling; for, if he has 

 not, 1 shall very probably try what virtue there is in 

 a grand jury in sui^h cases as his. I should like to 

 have this matter ventilated in Gleanings. 



Peter Brickey. 



Lawrenceburg, Ky., Sept. 28, 1880. 



I am very sorry to tell you, my friend, that 

 I fear your money is hopelessly lost, as hun- 

 dreds of others have lost theirs by sending 

 it to Mitchell ; but. you will find their record 

 from back volumes. If any thing can be 

 done to put a stop to this work, I will cheer- 

 fully help pay the expense of so doing. 



MITCHELL. 



Friend Novice:— Yours of the 7th inst., asking 

 for information concerning the whereabouts of 

 N. C. Mitchell, is received. He is located at Smith- 

 field, Mo., 14 miles east of Columbus, Kan. About a 

 year ago he traded territory in southwest Missouri 

 for the farm of Mr. Buchanan— the place on which 

 he is now supposed to be settled down. Last spring- 

 he called on us at the factory, and introduced him- 

 self as the " Great Swindler," N.C.Mitchell. We 

 talked with him about 10 minutes. Among other 

 things, he stated that he had started an apiary on 

 the Buchanan farm, and was prepared to furnish 

 queens in large quantities. We offered to buy, but 

 he had none to spare at the time. After leaving an 

 order for 300 queen shipping-cages, and paying for 

 the same, he took his departure. 



A few days ago, an acquaintance asked us if we 

 knew anything about N.C.Mitchell, of Smithneld, 

 Mo. After giving him what information we had in 

 stock, he stated that Mr. M. had offered him "big 



money" to go down to Little Rock, Ark., and start a 

 paper— ostensibly his own, but really the property 

 of Mr. M., to be run in the interest of the sale of ter- 

 ritory in that State, for the Mitchell Adjustable Bee 

 Hive. Our friend also told us that Mr. M. was about 

 through with Missouri, and was preparing to take in 

 Arkansas next; that the price offered for his ser- 

 vices at Little Rock was so bisr that he become sus- 

 picious, and declined to accept. So much for Mis- 

 souri and Arkansas. 



Friend Novice, you needn't pull down the humbug 

 column, for, in all probability, your friend Mr. 

 Mitchell will abide with you for some time to come. 

 Scovell & Anderson. 



Columbus, Kan., Oct. 12, 1880. 



JUSTICE OR MERCY, IN BUSINESS 

 MATTERS. 



£p|^N p. C47, July No., I find two questions referred 

 HUH) to your readers, as to what you shall do 

 ^~"^ (should or ought) in specified cases; and, as 

 they relate to a subject often mentioned in your 

 columns, my feelings have tilled up till I must give 

 you my mind in the matter. 



The first question, as to your duty with H. H. 

 Brooks, Belmont, Texas, who refuses to receive 

 goods ordered, would teem to depend merely upon 

 the responsibility of the man for the amount of 

 charges. As you have guaranteed them to the ex- 

 press company, you must assume thera. If you can 

 collect them out of Brooks, it is right you should do 

 so (according to your own and his published state- 

 ments). 



In the second case, where 500 sections were reject- 

 ed and returned to you so summarily, you should 

 simply let them alone and retain the money— or, at 

 least, enough of it to make yourself good, whether 

 you accept or refuse the returned goods. 



Leot you suspect my motive in this off-hand de- 

 cision, and perhaps the correctness of the latter, I 

 must assure you that I decided both questions on 

 their merits alone, with a view to do justice to the 

 parties immediately interested. And, let me ask 

 you plainly, is that the paramount consideration 

 with you in all such cases? because, if it is, it would 

 not seem so difficult to apply well-known bnsiness 

 principles to the very easy and infallible solution of 

 similar problems. But you will say, " I wish to do as 

 I would be done by." Perhaps, then, the other man 

 is right ; for, if you were in his place, you might want 

 to be "done by" just as he does; hence, to "put 

 yourself in his place" is hardly a safe rule to go by 

 —in some cases at least. But, is not justice— simple 

 and exact— the very essence of the golden rule in 

 business matters? Is it not the only principle to be 

 guided by— especially in the conduct of a large busi- 

 ness? I have read before of your perplexity when 

 a five-cent article would be returned by some very 

 mean or very ignorant person (for none other would 

 be guilty of it) because it did not tally with their ex- 

 pectations; and whenever I notice such a case, it 

 seems to me that your fear of giving offense to indi- 

 viduals, warped or clouded your judgment as to 

 pure right and wrong involved. 



Yet there is another consideration which should 

 forbid your pecuniary sacrifice in cases where you 

 are not to blame, and that you have referred to more 

 than once; viz., the consequent necessity of advanc- 

 ing prices to make yourself good against such unde- 

 sirable customers; for, of course, in the long run, it 



