328 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



May 21, 



PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY 



GEORGE W, YORK & COMPANY, 

 118 MicJxlsaa St.. - CHICAGO, ILL. 



REGULAR CONTRIBUTORS : 

 G. M. Doolittle, of New York. Prof. A. J. Cook, of California. 



Dr. C. C. Miller, of Illinois. Dr. J. P. H. Brown, of GeorBia. 



J. H. Martin, of California. Rev. E. T. Abbott, of Missouri. 



Barnett Taylor, of Minnesota. Mrs. L. C. Axtell. of Illinois. 



Chas. Dadant & Son, of niinois. 



$1.00 a Year— Sample Copy Sent Free. / 



[Bntered at the PostrOfflce at Chioago as Second-Class Mail-Matter.) 



VflinXVI, CHICAGO, ILL,, MY 21, 1896. No, 21. 



Sweet Clover is continuing to receive kind words 

 from various sources. Messrs. C. H. Dibbern & Son, of Milan, 

 111., reported in Gleanings that "Farmers are beginning to 

 find out that sweet clover is a valuable plant besides being a 

 good honey-plant." In the same number of that paper Joseph 

 Shaw, of Strong City, Kans., had this paragraph : 



I sow early in the spring about 10 pounds of seed to the 

 acre, with oats ; but I think it is better alone. I am saving 

 about two bushels of seed to sow in the corn at the last culti- 

 vating. I tried about four acres about the last of August, 

 1895, but it did not come up. Horses like it first rate when 

 they get used to it. Bees won't work on anything else while 

 the sweet clover is in blossom. 



Tlie "Union" and the Xortli American. 



—In Gleanings for May 1, both Mr. P. H. El wood and Editor 

 Root have something to say about the amalgamation of the 

 North American Bee-Keepers' Association and the National 

 Bee-Keepers' Union. In order that all may see just the line 

 of argument used, we reproduce what they had to say. The 

 following paragraphs are from Mr. El wood, Starkville, N. Y.: 



INACTION OP THE UNION ON THE MATTER OF ADULTERATION. 



It is a pity that the Bee-Keepers' Union, while under the 

 efficient management of Thomas G. Newman, could not have 

 taken up the matter of adulteration. Undoubtedly it would 

 have done so had the bee-keepers of this country thrown all 

 their energies into one organization instead of dividing them 

 between two. It will require a united front and some money 

 to stop this business. At a time when the Union so much 

 needs the cordial support of every intelligent bee-keeper of 

 the United States, it seems unwise to refuse the admission of 

 the North American, for this is really what this society is 

 asking of us. The constitution advised by the amalgamation 

 committee differs but slightly from the present constitution; 

 and I cannot see that it will impair the usefulness of the 

 Union, while it will bring to us a large and valuable support. 

 The management remains the same, vested in a board of 

 directors selected by the votes of all of the members of the 

 Union, as at present. The popular annual meeting, if such is 

 held, has no control over the funds of the Union — neither 

 directs its policy nor elects any of Its ofBcers. 



I can understand why the Canadians oppose the amalga- 

 mation, as they probably foresee that it will be found imprac- 

 ticable to make the new Union international. For several 

 years the usefulness of the North American has been seriously 



impaired, and its existence imperiled, if not shortened, by a 

 long-continued quarrel between the Americans and the Cana- 

 dians. I suggest that the present time would be a favorble 

 opportunity to end this belligerency by each party consenting 

 to mind its own business. By making the Union a national 

 organization, we shall be at liberty to attend to the question 

 of adulteration of our products, and the enactment of such 

 laws as may be necessary to wipe it out ; and if, at any future 

 time, the board of directors conclude that the Union can assist 

 in any way in marketing honey, there will be opportunity to 

 do so. 



It may be found practical to disseminate information as 

 to the relative needs of different markets and different parts 

 of the country for shipments of honey. Our weekly American 

 Bee Journal is published at the present headquarters of the 

 Union, and information as to the weekly receipts and further 

 needs of the chief distributing-points could be quickly dissemi- 

 nated. In some such way an intelligent oversight of the mar- 

 kets might be had, of much service to honey-producers, with 

 no investments, and at not a heavy expense. It would not do 

 to use Canadian money for this purpose, nor would it be ad- 

 visable for us to try to assist them in a work that they could 

 do so much better themselves. 



But more important than any exchange or possible super- 

 vision is the thorough development of a home market by every 

 bee-keeper. The bee-keepers of this part of the country could 

 easily sell all they produce in their home markets when such 

 amount does not exceed a ton, and is put up in such form as 

 to suit the demand of consumers. This would reduce the 

 amount sent to the cities or main distributing-points, so that 

 prices would materially improve. 



Editor Root says he had this editorial written before he 

 saw Mr. Elwood's article, and was pleased to note the harmony 

 existing between himself and Mr. Elwood upon the subject of 

 amalgamation : 



A NEW BEE-KEEPEKS' UNION. 



At the risk of putting my foot in it, I am going to make 

 another suggestion, or, more correctly, "amalgamate" the 

 plans suggested by me before, and those suggested by Bro. 

 York. If the amalgamation of the Bee-Keepers' Union with 

 the North American is not wise, then don't do it. Let the 

 North American stand just as it is. Then I would have the 

 Bee-Keepers' Union so modified in its constitution and its plan 

 of operation that it shall have annual meetings, elect ofiBcers, 

 discuss problems of protection to bee-keepers, and also those 

 that have come before the North American — in a word, take 

 in all the interests that concern the honey-business. 



It is evident that it is going to make trouble to try to 

 force the amalgamation of the North American and Union. 

 One society will have all it can do to take care of the affairs 

 of one country, without trying to spread itself all over the 

 continent ; and a new union or society can just as well do the 

 work formerly done by the two existing organizations. 



When Mr. Hutchinson proposed the matter of amalgama- 

 tion of the two societies, and the rest of us fell in with that 

 plan, the idea, as I understood it, was not so much amalgama- 

 tion as that we did not need two societies. Almost the only 

 objection against amalgamation is the idea of making the 

 Union international. By the plan above proposed, the Union 

 will remain national ; and yet the ultimatum that most of us 

 desire to obtain — annual meetings, and have one society do all 

 the work that was formerly done by the two — can be accom- 

 plished. In the meantime, the old North American can have 

 annual meetings, or triennial meetings, as suggested by Bro. 

 York, or disband. 



We are in most hearty accord with nearly all that both Mr. 

 Elwood and Mr. Root say. We never have seen the slightest 

 reason for any one opposing the amalgamation of the two 

 societies. The North American has practically said, "Take 

 us in, and then do just as you please." What more could the 

 Union want? All the opposition we have seen so far seems 

 to have been born of misunderstandings and misconceptions 

 of matters generally. 



We might call attention to the fact that the headquarters 

 of the Union are now in San Diego, Calif., and not, as Mr. 

 Elwood has it, where the American Bee Journal is published — 

 in Chicago. It was here until the General Manager (Mr. New- 

 man) removed to California. 



It does seem to us that if the benefits of amalgamation 

 could be properly placed before the membership of the Bee- 



