188? 



GLfeAJ^lKGS in BEt: CULTIJKE. 



2^9 



BEE-LEGISLATION. 



SOMETHING ON DK. C. C. MII^LKH'S SIDK OK THE 

 QUESTION. 



fRlEND KOOT:— I should like to thank Dr. C. C. 

 Nliller for the waj' he has handled the oppo- 

 nents of legislation in the interests of bee- 

 keepers. 1 believe he has come out ahead in 

 every article he has written on the subject. 

 His statements have been clearly and very conciselj- 

 made, and I know that no one can truthfully say he 

 has not been honest and candid in every instance; 

 and he has most persistently stuck to the subject, 

 which can not be said of any other one who has writ- 

 ten upon the subject in Gleanings. 



On p. 180, March 1, he says: " Controversy is not 

 at all to my taste, and in the present case I have the 

 uncomfortable feeling that, by advancing my views, 

 I have lowered myself in the esteem of those whose 

 good opinion I highly value." Can it be possible the 

 doctor feels that way? When I read that sentence 

 it gave me a feeling of sadness, and it does yet eve- 

 ry time I think of it; for it matters not how much 

 difference of opinion there may be, all who know 

 the doctor will certainly give him credit for being 

 sincere, and probably I should but voice the senti- 

 ment of many bee-keepers inteiested in the subject 

 in saying that perhaps he is as much in advance of 

 us all on the subject as "Old Abe" used to be found 

 in advance of public sentiment in many things dur- 

 ing the war, and that the doctor has not lowered 

 himself in the esteem of those whose good opinion 

 he so higblj- values, but that he has rather raised 

 himself in the estimation of all. It may be possible 

 that he is on the right track after all, and only time 

 is needed to show such to be the case. When he 

 proposed the appointing of a committee, at the N. 

 A. B. K. Convention at Indianapolis last October, to 

 investigate and report on the desirability and feasi- 

 bility of legislation in the interest of bee-keepers, 

 there was plenty of opposition; but, if I am not mis- 

 taken, not one who opposed the proposition then 

 has said any thing about it in Gleanings. When 

 such a man as Dr. Miller starts off from the beaten 

 track, it is enough to make thoughtful people 

 •' think twice" before showing opposition. 



Before there was any discussion of the matter of 

 legislation, he wrote an article on the subject; and 

 on page V81 of Gleanings for October 1, 1886, in the 

 first sentence of the second column he says: "In 

 plain words, I take the radical ground that legisla- 

 tion is needed, whereby, in some way, under proper 

 limitations and restrictions, by paying for it, I may 

 have the control of a number of acres or square 

 miles as a range for my bees." Now, it seems to me 

 that if every one who has written on the subject had 

 kept that statement in mind, it would have prevent- 

 ed the use of such terms as " such a covetous and 

 selfish spirit . . . as to favor legislation that 

 would deprive any one. so disposed, of the pleasure 

 of keeping bees," being applied to the doctor. What 

 is there so very covetous or selfish in his or any 

 one's else paying for a privilege to do a legitimate 

 business in a certain locality? And you, friend 

 Root, in your comments on the doctor's article, say, 

 " Your ideas are good and sound, but I am afraid it 

 will take a good while to get them into shape as 

 they are in agricultuic and some other pursuits." 

 Well, what if it does? does that lessen the need or 

 desirability of making the effort? If I am not mis- 

 taken, the Home of the Honey-Bees didn't grow up 



in a day, but it has taken years of hard thinking, 

 hard work, and push, and thousands of dollars, to 

 grow that fine home and that large and perfectly 

 ordered and well-stocked factory, etc., that have 

 necessitated the building of a railroad depot for 

 your accommodation. Have such bee-keepers as 

 Cook, Dadant, Doolittle, Demaree, Heddon, Hutch- 

 inson, Jones, and the scores of equally successful 

 ones become such by a few months of study and ex- 

 perience? Has it not been by the persistent work of 

 years? Thanks, friend Root, for saying that the 

 doctor's ideas are "good and sound." 



In another article the doctor asks, " What kind of 

 legislation is needed?" and then very frankly says, 

 " I don't know." If there could be some feasible 

 way devised, by legislation or otherwise, always 

 justly, of course, by which those who desire to make 

 bee-keeping a specialty could control the desired 

 locality, then it might be desirable to make special 

 effort to stock the locality with alsike, alfalfa, Chap- 

 man honey-plant, and other honey-plants suitable 

 to the locality. It seems that you, friend Root, %'ery 

 naturally thought of this matter several years ago, 

 when you were putting out your basswood orchard, 

 and very naturally came to the conclusion that you 

 could make it unprofitable for any one to attempt 

 to make honey-gathering from your honey-orchard 

 profitable, for you expected to raise queens and 

 bees for sale, and not surplus honey. 



On p. 945 of Gleanings for 1886, a writer says that 

 the doctor has baited his hook for "suckers "and 

 caught one at the first cast, etc. Ridicule is not ar- 

 gument, but with many it has more weight. If 

 thinking as the doctor does makes one a " sucker," 

 I should not be surprised if he had caught enough 

 to completely brush off that " uncomfortable feel- 

 ing" if they would only use their bee-brushes. It 

 seems to me that the desirability of controlling a 

 prescribed locality by those making bee-keeping a 

 specialty must be appai-ent to all. Its practicability 

 is another matter. One would hardly think of at- 

 tempting to raise grain or stock without having 

 first obtained control of the needed locality. 



I am afraid that the present generation of bee- 

 keepers would have to live longer than father Abra- 

 ham did before it would see all bee-keepers actuated 

 by the spirit he was. If they were so actuated, leg- 

 islation would not be needed. The doctor's articles 

 plainly show that he has in view the interests of 

 those engaged in the same pursuit he is, and fullj' 

 realizes, as does Mrs. Harrison and all others, that, 

 in order to raise "peas, beets, lettuce, and cab- 

 bages," people have " priority of location," and pay 

 for it too; but where has the doctor said any thing 

 about " priority of location," or suggested that any 

 thing be done that would give a privilege to one 

 bee-keeper that might not be enjoyed by any other? 

 W. W. Maltby does some good rhyming on page 66 of 

 Gleanings for 1887, but asks Dr. Miller a rather 

 strange question when he says: 



Now, Bro. Miller, pray tell, if you can. 

 Why for God's gifts we pay tribute to man. 



It seems to me that Bro. Maltby answered his own 

 question before he asked it when he said : 



God made the earth, the earth raises flowers; 

 We don't produce them, so they are not ours. 



Don't we pay tribute to man for the gifts of God 

 because they are gifts to others and not to our- 

 selves? I don't expect to have the benefits of God's 

 gifts to others without paying for them. 



Auburndale, O., Mar. 30, 1887. A. B. Mason. 



