1901 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



627 



all legislation, and can not be contested. It 

 is evident that the swarm belongs to the own- 

 er of the hive whence it issued, so long as he 

 has not abandoned pursuit, for he thus shows 

 his intention to keep what has never ceased to 

 be his property. 



Can the owner of a swarm chase it by proxy? 

 We do not believe a man can be compelled to 

 chase his swarm in person. No law prescribes 

 that ; and no one can in right refuse the right 

 of pursuit to one who, unable to do so him- 

 self, authorizes a second person to take his 

 place. 



As to following a swarm on uninclosed land, 

 if a swarm alights on such ground the bee- 

 keeper may follow it, but is responsible for all 

 incidental damage. If the land is fenced, the 

 pursuer has the right to claim and retake 

 when entrance to the farm has been accorded. 

 But how shall one act when permission is re- 

 fused ? In that case he goes before a justice 

 of the peace and gets out a " letter of delay," 

 in view of the urgency of the case, summon- 

 ing the owner of the land before the court, or- 

 dering him to give up the swarm or pay for it. 

 It has been decided that one who refuses to 

 the owner of a swarm the right to have access 

 to his land, even when surrounded by walls, 

 and whereon the bees have lodged, becomes 

 responsible for the damage caused by this re- 

 fusal. 



In regard to following a swarm lodged in 

 an empty hive, such swarm belongs to the 

 pursuer, at least so long as he has not aban- 

 doned pursuit. In such a case, no right can 

 take priority over his own ; hence he may take 

 the swarm, without hesitation. But suppose 

 the hive is already occupied, what then ? It 

 often happens that a swarm, in quest of a 

 home, attacks a feeble colony, or one ill de- 

 fended, overpowering it by main force, and, 

 after a regular siege, occupies the hive. The 

 pursuer, in this case, finds it impossible to 

 identify or retake his own bees ; for how can 

 he tell his own bees from the others? It has 

 then been generally decided that the swarm 

 should belong to the owner of the hive where 

 it is lodged, and without indemnity to the 

 pursuer, who has gained nothing, but lost 

 the greater part of his bees. The Roman law 

 did not confer the right of pursuit except 

 when the chase was easy. The French law 

 seems to confirm this, as it presupposes the 

 possibility of retaking the swarm. 



On whom is it incumbent to prove the own- 

 ership of the swarm ? In cases of dispute 

 with the owner of the land on which the bees 

 have settled, it is for the owner of the bees 

 to prove that they came from his hive. The 

 owner of the land finds himself the owner of 

 the bees unless he has by fraud enticed them, 

 or unless the owner of the hive has given up 

 pursuit. This decision conforms to the old 

 laws, and especially to the Ordinance of Louis 

 IX., in 1270. Ordinary proof by witnesses is 

 admissible. But it often happens that wit- 

 nesses were not on hand at the time the swarm 

 issued ; but for all that, reasonable presump- 

 tion must be allowed. 



The pursuit of bees may be interrupted by 

 a temporary obstacle, such as the coming of 



night or the passage of a stream of water. 

 But the right to follow is maintained in this 

 case, but on condiiion that the owner of the 

 bees shall resume pursuit as soon as possible — 

 for example, in the morning or when the 

 stream is crossed. 



The right to follow ceases with the abandon- 

 ing of the pursuit. 



Has everybody, like the owner of a colony, 

 the right to follow an abandoned swarm ? It 

 would seem, at first sight, that such a swarm 

 belonged to nobody ; that the first one com- 

 ing might follow it as well as the original 

 owner. But this opinion can not be sustained ; 

 for, as Mr. Varembey says, the right to follow, 

 accorded by the law of 1889 to the owner of a 

 hive casting a swarm, is an exceptional right 

 which can not be extended to other cases. 

 The pursuit should not be confounded with 

 occupation, the latter consisting only of the 

 real taking of the bees. Everybody may fol- 

 low, without doubt, an abandoned swarm, 

 without having a real rig/i^ to follow, includ- 

 ing all the results arising therefrom. He who, 

 then, is the first to take possession of an aban- 

 doned swarm becomes thereby the rightful 

 owner to the exclusion of all others. 



In reference to an abandoned swarm in sim- 

 ple repose, such swarm, before choosing a 

 habitation, frequently does not stop except 

 momentarily for a rest. In this case who is 

 the owner? The law is silent in this case; 

 but there is no doubt that the swarm, having 

 regained its natural liberty, should be con- 

 sidered wild, and the property of the finder. 



NOTES OF TRAVEL. 



A Visit with L. Stachelhausen and Louis Scholl ; 



the Honey-plants and Honey-resources of 



South central Texas. 



BY E. R. ROOT. 



After leaving Mr. Jenkins at Wetumpka, 

 Ala., I took the train for San Antonio, Texas, 

 going through Mississippi, Louisiana, and part 

 of Texas without a stop. At the station I was 

 met by a thick-set, full-bearded gentleman, 

 no less a personage than L. Stachelhausen, of 

 Selma, Texas. As a writer on bees in the 

 journals of both America and Germany, no 

 man is better known. Always practical, his 

 writings show a marked familiarity with the 

 bee literature of both continents. When, 

 therefore, the person I have described modest- 

 ly stepped forward and introduced himself as 

 Stachelhausen it was with a real thrill of 

 pleasure that I grasped his hand — a hand that 

 knows well how to lift heavy supers of honey 

 as well as swing the pen. He explained that 

 he was serving on the jury, and hence was 

 temporarily in San Antonio. As court had 

 been dismissed for the day, and knowing the 



