704 



GLEANINGS IN BEE oULTURE 



yards during the height of a period of ex- 

 cessive swarming, we extracted something 

 over a thousand pounds from combs, many 

 of which were not yet even partly sealed. 

 To our surprise the honey was as tliick as 

 any we ever extracted, and the flavor was 

 also equal to the very best. Under other 

 conditions (this was toward the close of 

 quite a protracted drouth) we are sure that 

 the honey would have been thin and entirely 

 unfit for table use. 



We wish to go on record, as we have said 

 before, that we do not believe in extracting 

 green honey, and then making an effort to 

 ripen it artificially. With a suitable equip- 

 ment we believe an expert may succeed; 

 but we can not recommend the practice for 

 the average beekeeper under the average 

 conditions. 



WHY THERE WAS NO APPROPRIATION FOR THE 

 TEXAS FOUL-BROOD LAW. 



In our issue for Oct. 1 we referred to the 

 fact that the splendid foul-brood law that 

 was enacted by the last legislature of Texas 

 did not carry with it an appropriation to 

 put it into effect. In writing to State 

 Entomologist Wilmon Newell concerning it 

 we stated that the situation was somewhat 

 the same in his State as it was formerly in 

 Pennsylvania; and we suggested that per- 

 haps under the cii'cumstances Mr. Newell 

 could adopt the same scheme that was em- 

 ployed two years ago in Pennsylvania — 

 namely, secure volunteer service from bee- 

 keepers interested in tlie suppression of 

 foul brood in their respective localities. 

 Much good was done in Pennsylvania be- 

 cause Prof. H. A. Surface, State Entomol- 

 ogist, clothed these volunteer inspectors 

 with police authority. The result was, a 

 large amount of good was done. In refer- 

 ring to this, Mr. Newell writes, under date 

 of Sept. 23 ; and as tliis letter plainly states 

 why this appropriation was not obtained, 

 we have secured his permission to publish 

 it, and here it is: 



Dear Mr. Root: — Replying to yours of the 16th, 

 our situation is quite different from what Prof. Sur- 

 face had to contend with in Pennsylvania. He did 

 have an appropriation of $500 with which to meet 

 " overhead expenses," I understand, whereas we 

 have nothing. A system of volunteer inspectors 

 would involve a pretty heavy correspondence for this 

 office, and this we can hardly undertake with no 

 money with which to defray postage, stationery, 

 stenographic expenses, etc. What is more, now that 

 no appropriation has been made for foul-brood eradi- 

 cation, I am not officially supposed to have that work 

 on my hands, and my time is fully taken up with 

 other lines of work. What I have done, however, is 

 to notify the county associations that in all cases 

 where they will defray the expenses of the inspector 

 (the amount of the inspector's compensation to be 

 arranged between the association and the inspector) 

 we will furnish the inspctor with an official appoint- 

 ment, and the necessary authority for the work . 



As a matter of fact, our Texas inspectors have in 

 the past been little more than volunteers. They have 

 been paid at the rate of $3.00 per day for time 

 actually employed, and out of this have paid their 

 own local traveling expenses and furnished their 

 own conveyances. They were really giving their time 

 to the State, and breaking even on the cash outlay 

 involved. 



I may add that the beekeepers of the State evi- 

 dently did not strain themselves any to see that the 

 appropriation was renewed. So far as I can learn, 

 only one 'beekeeper took the trouble to visit Austin 

 for this purpose while the last legislature was in 

 session. If the men whose property is at stake have 

 no more interest in the eradication of bee diseases 

 than this, why should / work nights and holidays, 

 and go to Austin and lobby for foul-brood appropria- 

 tions at my own expense ? I have never received a 

 cent of salary for the time and work devoted to foul- 

 brood eradication. The only satisfaction I have is 

 that of knowing that nearly a thousand cases of dis- 

 ease have been cleaned up, and that half a million 

 dollars invested in beekeeping has received protec- 

 tion from disease during the past four yars. 



Now that things have turned out as they have, I 

 rather regret the last sentence of the article in 

 Gleanings, which states that copies of the new foul- 

 brood law were ready for distribution about Sept. 

 15. Now that there is no appropriation we can not, 

 of course, print any copies of the foul-brood law, 

 and the immense amount of work in other lines abso- 

 lutely precludes our taking the time to either type- 

 write or multigraph a suificient supply to meet all 

 requests. Wilmon Newell. 



College Station, Tex., Sept. 23. 



Not only the beekeepers of Texas, but all 

 other beekeepers in the Union, should read 

 this letter. It has happened more than once 

 that apathy on the part of beekeepers has 

 been responsible for the defeat of suitable 

 foul-brood leg-islation. Law-makers will 

 very often disregard the request of a single 

 individual, even though he be a State offi- 

 cial; but if this same official is backed up 

 by a State organization representing a large 

 membership, or if, however, the beekeepers 

 l)resent themselves in a body l^efore the 

 legislative connnittee having the bill in 

 charge, as a general thing something will 

 be clone. We can not blame the legislators 

 for failing to enact laws when the parties 

 most interested in a financial way or other- 

 wise do not show any interest in the mea- 

 sure. If the beekeepers of Texas had sent 

 in a thousand or more postals to the mem- 

 bers of their general assembly, the situation 

 would not be as it is now. 



Referring to the $500 appropriation 

 available to Professor Surface for foul- 

 brood inspection work, we may state that 

 two years ago he had no appropriation. 

 Having the law, he was able to enlist the 

 services of quite a number of volunteer in- 

 sjiectors whom he clothed with police au- 

 thority. During the past year he Avas able 

 to get^lOOO for two years'instead of $3500 

 for one year. He made the first $500 go as 

 far as he could. He may have to depend 

 largely on tlie volunteer inspection work as 

 before. 



