THE BEE-REEPERS ic 



surplus " at their command, for they may 

 have to look after some adulteration mat- 

 ters, or swiudling commission men, or some 

 other fellows one of these days, and to have 

 a few "sinews" at hand may not come 

 amiss. 



For one I am decidedly in favor of a union 

 of the two societies, " provided ALWAYS " 

 that it can be so accomplished that the 

 efficiency of the work that has been and is 

 to be done by the Union shall in no way be 

 impaired. 



I believe you are correct in vour statement 

 that "too many seem to have the habit of 

 voting ior everything that is proposed, giv- 

 ing the subject little or no thought. " 



Don't the danger in the union of the two 

 organizations lie right here? 



At one meeting of the N. A. B. K. A. the 

 members present, in their haste and wisdom 

 fix up the constitution and by-laws to suit 

 themselves. At the next meeting in another 

 locality, and with an almost entirely new 

 membership who have matters in hand, and 

 with their superior (?) wisdom they do away 

 with or perhaps remodel the previous year's 

 action, and the next year with the conven- 

 tion held perhaps hundreds of miles from 

 previous meeting places, and again with an 

 almost entirely new membership this may 

 give matters a new twist, so that nothing 

 in its make-up is " stable aud abiding. " 

 Will it better matters any to have the solid 

 Union placed at the mercy of such effemi- 

 nate organization? 



Mr. Heddon says " yon are correct, I think, 

 Mr. Editor, when you say that the probable 

 reason why organization has done so little 

 is because bee-keepers haven't been able to 

 discover its usefulness; and I wish to add 

 that they haven't yet been able, except in 

 the case of the bee-keepers' Union, which 

 was organized for the special purpose of 

 dignifying our profession, and maintaining 

 our inalienable rights. " That is well put, 

 and every member of the Union, yes, and 

 every bee-keeper ought to feel proud of what 

 the Union has accomplished.- Why not let 

 well enough alone? That may be done I 

 believe, and still a union be effected. 



Our Canadian friends have discovered the 

 usefulness there is in organization, and how 

 to organize, and the discovery^was made by 

 hard and persistent work by such men as 

 Pettit, Cornell, Pringle, McKnight, Holter- 

 man and a score, more or less, of other earn- 

 est, active and efficient workers, and if we in 



the U. S. would adopt and carry out Mr. 

 Pringle's suggestions made in the Review, 

 we too might make a far more creditable 

 showing. 



I believe I'm pretty nearly in the same 

 boat with Mr. McKnight, and he's in the 

 same one Dr. Miller has been in so long. I 

 believe it's name is " I don't know. " Near- 

 ly all of us might have been in that boat ( I 

 guess it's a large one ) if we hadn't adopted 

 the old adage, " a wise head keeps a close 

 mouth. " It's a very easy matter to say I 

 don't know, but is that keeping a close 

 mouth? Without infringing on Dr. Miller's 

 patent I might perhaps ask a question or 

 two, or more. 



If a union of the societies is considered ad- 

 visable would it not be well to adopt the name 

 Bee-Keepers' Union, or the North American 

 Bee-Keeper's Union, and have its officers 

 and Board of managers chosen in the same 

 or some similar way as is now done by the 

 Union, and so remove the management of 

 its affairs from the control of those who 

 join the organization when a convention is 

 held in their locality ? Then it will not 

 matter in what part of North America one 

 lives, he can send his membership fee, and 

 vote, and feel he is doing something towards 

 " dignifying our profession, and maintaining 

 our inalienable rights" as Mr. Heddon puts 

 it. Conventions can be held so as to give us 

 a chance to " see the boys, " and girls, and 

 discuss matters of interest to the fraternity, 

 but leaving the conducting of our legal and 

 kindred matters entirely in the hands of the, 

 or a. Board of Managers composed of the 

 best business talent in the fraternity. 



It certainly can do no harm to discuss the 

 matter at the Toronto meeting, and so 

 enable those who have said nothing about 

 the union to give their views and show what 

 they door " don't know," and it might be 

 advisable to choose a commitee of sound, 

 level-headed, business bee-keepers to con- 

 sider the matter, and plan for such a 

 union, said committee to report at the next 

 annual meeting. Of course, as Mr. New- 

 man says, no union can be effected without 

 the consent of both societies. 



Another question has frequently occurred to 

 me and I wonder if it would be in order to ask 

 it in this connection? Would not a change 

 in the constitution of the Union so that a 

 membership could begin at any time the 

 fee is paid, be desirable? If I am correct, 

 as at present provided, if one pays his fee 



