1887 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



17 



combs start to sag, it only tightens them, the bot- 

 tom of the frame being smaller than the top. 



Another great advantage is, that the frames are 

 always movable. Vou will notice that the least nj)- 

 ward motion of the frame will loosen any part 

 where the bees may have filled in with comb or 

 propolis, and the more you lift the frame up the 

 looser it becomes. You can really hold the frame 

 down in the hive when you shake the bees off, thus 

 keeping them from flying so much. It is the frame 

 for Iransferring, as you will notice the comb, when 

 cut to fit tight in the frame, will rather lie against 

 the end-bar of the frame, and thus obviate the ne- 

 cessity of tjing the combs in. The frame gi\"ps 

 something like a comb of a natural shape, thus do- 

 ing away, to a great extent, with the lower empty 

 corner nearly always found in the ordinary S(juare 

 frame. Again, this hive gives a large space on top 

 ne.xt to the surplus bo.x or case— not larger than the 

 Simplicity, but larger in proportion to the rest of 

 the hive. 1 have noticed it as a fact, that the bees 

 go mori' readily into the surplus-boxes. Vou will 

 see from the peculiar shape of the hive that it will 

 economize the warmth in winter. There are a 

 great many other advantages to be had in using 

 this hive, but experience will teach better than the 

 pen can tell. The greatest objection is, that the 

 hive is more difficult to make than others. 



Benton, La., Dec. IT, 1886. ("hakles King.sley. 



Friend K., the hive you mention is not 

 new ; in fact, our friends across the water 

 both used and described the same thing by 

 drawings quite a number of years ago. One 

 of the difficulties is. that you can not tier the 

 hives up. one above another; and while we 

 admit the advantages in lifting the frames, 

 I believe it has been generally decided that 

 this advantage does not overbalance the dis- 

 advantages. Heddon's reversible frame has 

 the end-bars that go only part way down, 

 made wedge-shaped— thus accomplishing in 

 a measure the same thing that you do. I 

 believe your reasons for preferring such a 

 frame are all of them sound ones ; and per- 

 haps some of our readers may prefer to use 

 hives made in this way ; but why so great a 

 reduction as from 174 to 14i V 



BEE-LEGISLATION. 



UR. .MILIiER STtliL DEFENDS HIS POSlTll)N. 



Up S I read the remarks of Z. T. Hawk, p. 944, 

 ^Mk. and the queries of A. F. Stauffer on page 



j^K 947, Gleanings, 1886, I see plainly that there 

 ■*^ is an entire misapprehension as to the scope 

 and bearing of bee-legislation. Bro. Stauf- 

 fer asks, " Why should there be a monopoly of bee- 

 keeping, any more than of any thing else V " I do 

 not think there should be any more monopoly of 

 bee-keeping than of farming. Bro. Hawk objects 

 to class legislation. In the sense in which I think 

 he use.>i it, 1 do not want class legislation. I want 

 just tlie same legislation for bee-keepers that he 

 wants for farmers, and that farmers have had ever 

 since the settlement of this country. 



It is possibly a little unfortunate that the word 

 "legislation " has been used, for nowadays there is 

 so much of jobbing and dishonesty in much of the 

 legislation that whenever any thing is not fully un- 

 derstood, some hidden dishonesty is suspected. 

 Yet, do away with all legislation, and nothing but 



anarchy is left, for which we are not yet ready. 

 For my own part I believe I desire no legislation 

 except that which shall promote the greatest good 

 of the greatest number. Let me briefly state the 

 basis upon which such legislation may be asked. 

 The successful pj-osccution of bee-keeping maybe 

 made a source of wealth to the country, hence is 

 for the general good. To be successfully prosecut- 

 ed, it is necessary that those who embaik in the 

 business shall be reasonably secure that any out- 

 lay of time, thought, or money, shall inure to a fair 

 extent to their own benefit. This can hardly be, 

 unless the bee-keeper can have a certain territory 

 secured to his own use; and as laws now stand, he 

 can have no assurance of this, hence the need of a 

 new law. 



The editor of Gleanings offers a solutiou of the 

 difficulty, p. 94.5, which, under certain circumstan- 

 ces, would be very satisfactory. It is, to use the 

 spirit that actuated father Abraham in his division 

 of the land with Lot. But, admitting that there 

 may be an Abraham in each case, can he be sure 

 of a Lot to deal wichV It would do away with the 

 necessity for law in nearly all, if not all cases, if 

 everybody wanted to do exactly right. It is just 

 because they do not want to do right, that laws are 

 necessary. If every one were like Abraham, or 

 even like Lot, no one would steal; but under exist- 

 ing circumstances would you, brother Hoot, advise 

 the abrogation of the laws against stealing? More- 

 over, the cases are not parallel. Abraham and Lot 

 jointly occupied the same teri'itory; and when the 

 territory became overstocked an amicable divi- 

 sion was made. To make the case parallel to the 

 one in question, suppose that Lot, a year after the 

 division, had brought his flocks and herds, and 

 planted himself right by Abraham, and occupied 

 Abraham's territory, would the old patriarch have 

 quietly submitted to this encroachment? I trow 

 not. 



Friend Hawk says, " If the professional bee-keep- 

 er is to be protected by law against the amateur," 

 etc. The protection I ask for is for any profession- 

 al or amateur, as against any other professional or 

 amateur who may be unwise «r dishonest enough 

 to encroach upon him, the same as the law protects 

 the professional or amateur farmer from any en- 

 croachment upon his territory. Friend Hawk 

 thinks no grocer should have exclusive right in 

 any given territory. Neither do I. I think a farm- 

 er should, and friend H. thinks so most emphatical- 

 ly, as he says, '* I certainly should resent any law 

 that would sell to him any right whatever in re- 

 gard to my farm." Why should the farmer have 

 what he is pleased to call class legislation, and not 

 the grocer? Because the grocer can carry on his 

 business to his entire satisfaction with the ground 

 covered only by his building. Limit him to a lot 

 30 feet square, and he may do a business of $.500 

 or f .50(1.000 per year, dependent entirely upon other 

 things than the ground he occupies. Plant right 

 beside him another grocer, with the same territory, 

 and even the same capital, and one may do ten 

 times as much business as the other, and this com- 

 petition is really a necessary thing for the general 

 good. With the farmer (as with the bee-keeper> 

 the case is different. Take from him the exclusive 

 control of a definite territory, and he ceases farm- 

 ing. His business can not be carried on without 

 the control of that territory, and competition In 

 his case comes in when his products are put upon 



