54 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTUKE. 



Jan. 



good friend, but I am sure we are not, 

 many of us, so narrow-minded as the man 

 who thought his neighbors might take their 

 honey somexchere else. 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' UNION. 



FRIEND HEDDON'S IDEAS UPON THE SAME. 



«FTER reading our hig-hlj- respected sister 

 Harrison's talk about the Bee-Keepers' Un- 

 ion, and j'our foot-notes on page 11, I, being 

 the founder of the organization, or, perhaps, 

 I might better say, originator of the same, 

 and am now serving the second year as president of 

 the same, and to-day, as ever, believe with Prof. 

 Cook and many other intelligent and honest bee- 

 keepers, that, if properly supported and managed, 

 it will prove a great success and blessing, it may 

 not displease you by my suggesting a few thoughts 

 contrary to Mrs. Harrison's article. I believe that 

 neither Mrs. Harrison nor yourself have looked at 

 this question from the right standpoint. Ask your- 

 self, first, Is bee-keeping, in the nature of things, a 

 legitimate and useful business? Certainly you will 

 say, " Yes." Now, admitting that we may follow it 

 as a business, are we not entitled to the same rights, 

 vs. the rights of others, that other lines of legiti- 

 mate business are entitled to'/ A railrond cuts 

 through a farm because it can not run under it nor 

 afford to go around it. The odor of horse-stables 

 is allowed to waft out upon the breeze, because 

 it is impracticably expensive to absorb it in the 

 barn, and horse-keeping is a legitimate business. 

 When bees are kept so close to land not owned 

 by the keeper that persons traversing that land are 

 liable to be stung by the bees in defense of their 

 hives, I hold that keeper responsible, because he 

 can prosecute the business successfully without 

 keeping such bees in such manner and in such 

 places that any one need be stung by them in de- 

 fense of their homes, unless the person stung is 

 trespassing upon the land of the bee-keeper, in 

 which case said person will be held by law and rea- 

 son to abide by the consequences. I have surveyed 

 the ground many times, and firmly believe that any 

 rights less than those mapped out above will re- 

 duce our business to an uncertain "child's play," 

 alike damaging to producers and consumers, and 

 tending to keep us in constant litigation. For 13 

 years I kept from 16 to IHO colonies within 30 feet of 

 our house, and the same distance from a neighbor's 

 house, in the most thickly settled portion of the 

 town, and in all that time no person, outside of the 

 yard, was stung by one of my bees in defense of 

 their homes. A small boy was stung in the foot by 

 stepping on a bee at work while on white clover. 

 This took place about 40 rods from the apiary. His 

 father, a Jewish clothier, asked me if I ought not to 

 remove the bees from the town. I told him that I 

 might move them when he would move from his 

 barn a stock of rat, mink, and skunk skins whijh 

 he kept constantly in stock, and which were as con- 

 stantly wafting their odor into our doors and win- 

 dows, which were about 12 rods distant. He replied, 

 "Oh! that's all right; 1 didn't expect you to re- 

 move your bees unless you wanted to." 



You see, the reason why we are overreached in 

 our natural rights is because the people attach no 

 more dignity oi' importance to honey-producing 



now than when the product was produced in fence- 

 corners in " skeps," and was a dripping mixture 

 of bee-bread and honey. 



In ray first letter upon the sub.ieet of our Tnion, 

 anticipating its possible tendency to create trouble. 

 I guarded against it by particularizing that any 

 member asking aid of the Union must be able to 

 show that no trouble was brewing at the time he 

 became a member, it being the duty of directors to 

 look into this matter in every case when asking tlie 

 Union for aid. 1 believe this important feature has 

 been omitted from the by-laws. With this added, 

 and the already healthy arrangement that the 

 Union shall not bear all of the expense (and, I 

 should like to add, except where the defendant is 

 poor), but about two-thirds of it, I think Mr. New- 

 man tells us, I see no danger from any of the bad 

 results depicted by Mrs. Harrison. The Union pro- 

 poseSjto defend nothing but evident rights; and its 

 board of directors, after carefully examing the law 

 and the facts, will surely be able judges and hon- 

 est exponents of the merits of the case. I feel that 

 you, friend Root, are not saying as much in ra\-orof 

 our interests as simple justice warrants. 



FRIEND MILLER'S LE(ilSLATI ON. 



1 have been opposingDr. Miller's proposed " legis- 

 lation for bee-keepers," through the ^4. B. ./., and J 

 want to say that I agree with him fully in nearly ev- 

 ery point he makes on page 17 of your last issue, ex- 

 cept that I believe it can and will be brought about 

 by the law of "the survival of the fittest," and in no 

 other way. I know that the results of this natural 

 law are sometimes not in harmony with our highest 

 conception of right; but in this case 1 think they 

 are, and that by it, is the best and only possible waj' 

 to bring about the ends desired by friend Miller. 

 Any way, he is to be congratulated for the candid, 

 clear, and concise style in which he has vaiKiuished 

 his opponents. To my mind, he never wrote a bet- 

 ter article for our journals. We have held conven- 

 tion after convention, and written essay after essay 

 devoted exclusively to "getting on" in the produc- 

 tion of honey, and now we begin to feel how pover- 

 ty-stricken we are, regarding our Knowledge and 

 works which enable us to add Hmincial success to 

 that of successful producing. 1 trust that, before 

 next swarming-time— in this latitude— we may hold 

 a convention devoted exclusi\'el.>- to a \'e\v very im- 

 portant subjects, closely relating to our f-uccess, 

 but not in the line of product ion. There is much 

 else to look after. 



THE HUTCHINSON I' A i\t I'H LKT. 



I have seen yours and friend Uuss' call lo friend 

 Hutchinson to give us a pamphlet on the subject of 

 the non-use of Idn. in biood-ehiiniliers. ^^•llich.is as 

 imjjortant as it is original. Our lieaiiy thanks and 

 profoundest honors are due to liicnd H. for his work 

 in this direction, which has been as diligent and suc- 

 cessful as novel. Who among us can write a terser. 

 more vigorous, or clearer treatise on tli's orany oth- 

 er apicultural subject, than friend H.'r The i.ddition 

 of other subjects, with its conse(iMent enlargement 

 of the pamphlet, I am sure \v(Mild be pnzcd bj- us 

 all. We have none too many books ilevoted to oui' 

 chosen pursuit, particularlj from such men as 

 W. Z. H., who possesses in so high a degree success- 

 ful, practical knowledge, and the ability to clearlj' 

 Impart it to others through the medium of the press. 

 I am confident I should profit by it. 



Dowagiac, Mich. ,Iamks Hkdho.n. 



