Ill 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW- 



would be borne if there were sufficient in- 

 centive, such, for instance, as there is in 

 politics. But political organizations are 

 conducted upon a different basis, and with 

 different ends in view than is the case with 

 apicultural organizations. The half a dozen, 

 or dozen, members of a county society do 

 not feel like going down into their individ- 

 ual pockets and paying $1.00 each to send 

 one of their members to the meeting of the 

 State society. There is a feeling that the 

 delegate is a favored man (and he is), that 

 he is going to the State meeting at their ex- 

 pense, and that no benefit will come to them 

 from his attendance. And there would be 

 no direct benefit. A prosperous and power- 

 ful State organization of bee-keepers is a 

 benefit to the bee-keepers of that State, and 

 a national organization of this character is 

 a national benefit, and a local bee-keeper 

 who helps to build up a local society that 

 sends its delegate to the State society that 

 in its turn contributes to the prosperity of a 

 national organization, indirectly receives a 

 benefit for the money and time so spent ; but 

 said benefits seem so far away in the dim and 

 misty future, while the hard earned dollar 

 resting so snugly in the pocket seems too near 

 and tangible to be parted with. Having the 

 local societies auxilliary to State societies, 

 and the latter auxilliary to the North Ameri- 

 can is the plan that has always been pro- 

 posed, and always failed— failed, I think, for 

 the reason that I have given. Except in an 

 indirect way the North American has noth- 

 ing to give in return for the support that 

 might come from the State societies, and 

 the latter have nothing to give in return to 

 local societies for sending delegates. In 

 mutual insurance companies, and other sim- 

 ilar orders, each " lodge " is dependent upon 

 the others, and all upon the grand "lodge," 

 for existence ; there is a direct, tangible mo- 

 tive for the building up of other "lodges," 

 and a general support of the "order." 

 There is a certain amount of selfishness in 

 human nature that must be recognized in 

 all succes-ful attempts at organization. A 

 man does not use his money, time and in- 

 fluence in perfecting and building up an or- 

 ganization, unless there is at least a hope 

 that he may reap some reward. One reason 

 why the Bee-Keepers' Union has met with the 

 success that it has, is because each member 

 is privileged to call for help should he at 

 any time suffer persecution. It is true that 

 this was not the only motive. Professional 



pride, sympathy for a brother in trouble, a 

 natural resentment against persecution, and 

 a knowledge that such an organization would 

 work to the good of bee-keeping in general, 

 all had their weight, but would not have 

 been sufficient in many instances. There 

 was needed a personal, selfish interest. 



The primary object of apicultural conven- 

 tions is supposed to be that of discussing 

 subjects pertaining to bee-keeping with a 

 view to improvement. So thoroughly have 

 the journals done thtir work, that, especially 

 with leading bee-keepers, this motive for 

 meeting is not a very strong one. The lead- 

 ing motive now is the social feature — to see 

 the " boys," and have a good time. 



To bring about a strong, efficient national 

 organization of bee-keepers, every possible 

 obstacle and cost should be removed, and 

 every possible motive appealed to as an in- 

 ducement for giving it support. For these 

 reasons I think it would be better if the 

 North American and the Bee-Keepers' Union 

 were merged into one society. As it now is 

 the members and officers of the Union never 

 hold any meetings. All discussions are made 

 either in the journals or by mail, and all 

 voting is done by mail. To the plan of vot- 

 ing by mail, I see no objections, but I do 

 think it would be an advantage if the officers 

 and leading members, or as many as wish to 

 attend, could meet in convention once a year 

 and discuss ways and means face to face. 

 When there was a change made in its con- 

 stitution three years ago, the subject was 

 first discussed in the journals, then contin- 

 ued in a meeting of the North American 

 where certain changes were recommended 

 and finally adopted by the Union, a decision 

 being arrived at by means of a vote made by 

 mail. 



The object of the North American is to 

 meet socially and discuss apiarian topics for 

 mutual improvement. The primary object 

 the the Union was to defend its members 

 against unjust persecution, but its constitu- 

 tion has now been changed so that money 

 may be used for any purpose thought advi- 

 sable by the board. I se'^ no reason why 

 these two national societies should not join 

 forces, making one grand organization en- 

 dowed with the characteristics now pos- 

 sessed by both. There could be the grand 

 rally each year in a convention the same as 

 is now enjoyed by the North American, the 

 same class of topics discussed, and, in ad- 

 dition, there could be the free face to face 



