"HE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



257 



society on account of the expense, " and 

 writing two columns in a general way, you 

 "think it would be better if the N. A. and 

 the I'nion were merged into one society. 

 * * * I see no reason why these two soci- 

 eties should not join forces. " 



Looking at the two societies as they are 

 now organized does your statement show 

 that there are " no reasons why " they 

 should »io^ join forces? By no means. 



The B. K. Union although laboring under 

 difficulties at the start has done splendid and 

 efficient work, and under the present man- 

 agement, with a splendid, level-headed, hon- 

 est attorney and bee-keeper at its head, and 

 that experienced, earnest, successful and 

 loved general manager at the helm, it has 

 had every thing its own way, and if you 

 think it can be better managed, just please 

 tell us hoiv. 



It certainly can't be done by its giving it- 

 self, soul and body over into the hands of a 

 society the object of which "is to meet 

 socially and discuss apiarian topics for 

 mutual improvement. " 



I see no reason why the Union should not 

 go right on in its good work, and when the 

 N. A. puts itself on as good a foundation as 

 the Union is on, and gets to be as respecta- 

 ble and as much respected as is the Union, 

 then will be time enough to " marry " if it 

 can be decided that there is a " blushing 

 bride " in the case, for there certainly is 

 none now, although it seems ( but "things 

 are not always what they seem " ) that there 

 may be a weakly, sickly organization that 

 is perfectly willing to enter into the conju- 

 gal relation and " gobble up " a strong and 

 stalwart one that has good sound health and 

 brains, and " stands well on its legs." I 

 don't believe the Union is yet ready to be 

 " laid on the shelf " as useless. 



The articles of Messrs. Marks, Case, 

 Clarke and Heddon do not refer ( if I re- 

 member correctly ) to the union of the N. A. 

 and the Union, neither does Mr. Pringle's 

 article of nearly two and a half pages in 

 the July Review refer to it, except to say in 

 the last four lines, " I quite agree with the 

 editor of the Review that a union of the 

 North American ajiA the Bee Keeper's Union 

 would be a wise move and to the advantage 

 of both, and Newman's only objection to 

 the union of the two societies is summed up 

 in one sentence of his article, "the Union is 

 prosperous and successful, and needs no 

 affiliation." Tine, .vciy word of it. Mr. 



Pringle's article on how to secure better or- 

 ganization is so full of good practical sug- 

 gestions that it will be well for those inter- 

 ested in the matter to re-read and think 

 about the suggestions there made. 



Mr. McKnight says that "to meet socially 

 and discuss apairian topics, for mutual im- 

 provement is about all that can be said 

 about the usefulness of the N. A. thus far." 

 Such being the facts what has the N. A. to 

 offer the Union for tlie benefits expected to 

 come to it by a union with the Union. Mr. 

 McKnight does not put himself on record 

 either for or against the union of the two 

 societies. 



Mr. Abbott is in favor of the union but 

 fails to give any reason why such union 

 would be advisable. 



Mr oecor in speaking of the two societies 

 s:'os • As long as we can obtain such able 

 administration as has thus far characterized 

 its management, in the person of Thos. G. 

 Newman, it looks foolish to try to recon- 

 struct it or merge it into another organiza- 

 tion whose aim and object is educational 

 and advising. " I believe that one sentence 

 has more good sound sense in it than there 

 is in all that has been said in favor of the 

 union. 



In one of your editorials you say " the ad- 

 vantage to the Union would be a face to 

 face discussion each year that would be of 

 great advantage. There is scarcely an 

 organization that does its best unless its 

 members have a general meeting once a 

 year. * * * Better work will be done by 

 the Union when its members hold annual 

 meetings. " Mr. Editor do you really feel 

 " in your bones " that any great advantage 

 would have been gained by the members of 

 the Union having had " a face to face dis- 

 cussion " on the work that has been done, or 

 that " a grand meeting once a year " would 

 have enabled the Board of Managers to have 

 done better work than they have done? 



Without the aid (?) of " face to face dis- 

 cussions " or " grand meetings " the Union 

 has come out ahead every time, and with 

 the least amount of work and expense, and 

 it's no wonder that the amount of work and 

 expense " lessens as the years go by " as 

 you say. 



If, as you intimate, the Union is getting 

 too heavily ladened with the '• sinews of 

 war, " why not reduce the membership fee, 

 but don't let's cripple the Board of Mana- 

 gi rs by reducing the amount of " available 



