1896. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



771 



the North American Bee-Keepers' Association ;" but as there 

 is no such association, I presume he means the " United States 

 Bee-Keepers' Union ;" and as an oCRcer of the Union I should 

 like to have a hand in helping to making the discussion on his 

 " criticism " a little bit "lively," and try to correct some of 

 hts misrepresentations. 



After the Constitution was adopted at Lincoln, It became 

 my duty, as Secretary of the United States Bee-Keepers' 

 Union, to notify the Advisory Board of the National Bee-Keep- 

 ers' Union of the action taken ; and In order to hasten matters 

 I asked the editor of the American Bee Journal, who was to 

 publish the proceedings of the Lincoln convention, to put the 

 Constitution and the motioa (" that we request the Advisory 

 Board of the National Bee Keepers' Union to put this consti- 

 tution to a vote of the members of that Union at their next 

 annual election, for their adoption or rejection ") in type as 

 soon as possible, and send me at once enough proofs for each 

 of the Advisory Board, which he very kindly did. 



I at once sent them to the Secretary of the Advisory Board, 

 Mr. Newman, and wrote him in substance that, ■' I sim^erely 

 hope the measure will pass, and I hope you will hurry the 

 matter up as rapidly as possible, and get It in the bee-journals 

 so that we can have time to discuss it before the annual elec- 

 tion in January." It Is more than probable that I asked him 

 to make such suggestions as he might think best; but It was 

 not sent him for the purpose of criticism ; and as I had before 

 sent him a copy with a similar request, and as in reply he 

 made but one suggestion, I had no thought of his taking upon 

 himself the responsibility of refusing to present the matter to 

 the Advisory Board, and "refer it back to tbe next conven- 

 tion at Buffalo ;" so In all kindness and candor, and with the 

 best of intentions, as with Mr. Newman, I will try to point out 

 what, to me, seem to be some of the " incongruities " of his 

 "criticism." 



The Constitution of the National Bee-Keepers' Union, in 

 Arts. IIL and V., provides who shall be members, and what 

 oflBcers it shall have, what their duties shall be. how they 

 shall be chosen, and how long they shall hold their position ; 

 but it makes no provision as to when the officers are to be 

 chosen. Now, if the National Bee-Keepers' Union can make 

 such a grand success with such provisions in its constiiution, 

 what can possibly be the harm in putting similar but more 

 complete provisions in the Constitution of the United Stales 

 Bee Keepers' Union? and if it, as Mr. Newman says, shows 

 "Incongruities" and lack of " cotnpleteness," what shall be 

 said of the lack of "completeness" of the constitution of the 

 National Bee-Keepers' Union, In the framing of which, I De- 

 lieve (but don't know), he took a leading part "^ 



The aim in formulating the New Constitution was to in 

 no way cripple or hinder, but, rather, to increase the scope 

 and efficiency of the work of the old Union ; and Its constitu- 

 tion was studied, and Its provisions incorporated in the new 

 wherever It seemed advisable, never dreaming that the consti- 

 tution of the National Bee Keepers' Union was so " incon- 

 gruous" and so lacking in "consistency and completeness." 



He says that " Article V. creates an Executive Committee, 

 but nowhere are the duties and powers of that committee de- 

 fined." Well, well ! did you ever ? I wonder if he read the 

 Constitution before writing his "criticism." If he did, he 

 could hardly fail to notice that Sec. 2, Art. V., very distinctly 

 defines one of the duties of that committee, and that half of 

 Art. III. and all of Art. IX. are devoted to the same subject ; 

 and Sees. J, 2, and 3 of Art. VI. are wholly devoted to the 

 duties of the individual membersof that Committee ; and in no 

 way, in the discharge of their duties, singly or collectively, do 

 they, as Mr. Newman says, "interfere with the duties of the 

 Board of Directors," and no " conflict of authority would 

 ensue." 



He asks, "If the Board of Directors be not the Executive 

 Committee, what is the Board created for? What are its 

 duties?" If he will read the last half of Sec. 4. Art. VI., and 

 Sec. 6 and 7 of the same article, all of Art. VII. and the last 

 half of Art. VIII., he will find what the Board of Directors is 

 for, and what its duties are, quite fully set forth. 



In criticising Sec. 3, Art. VI , he says, " Here is a big 

 loop-hole, because it provides that the Secretary of the Union 

 shall pay to the Treasurer of the Union all moneys left In his 

 hands after paying the expense of the annual meeting." It 

 has been customary for the Secretary to pay the usual ex- 

 penses of the Association out of the moneys he received for 

 membership fees, and pay the remainder to the Treasurer; 

 and I am not aware that any one has ever before thought of 

 there being even a small " loophole," to say nothing of a big 

 one. If Mr. Newman considers this " a big loop-hole," how 

 would he, if he were outside of the position of Secretary, 

 Treasurer, and General Manager, fitly characterize the method 

 of handling the hundreds — yes, thousands — of dollars of funds 



that have been in his hands as Treasurer (General Manager) 

 without a single provision In the constitution for its safety ? I 

 have not the means at hand for knowing all about the past 

 condition of the treasury of the National Bee-keepers' Union ; 

 but, if my memory serves me correctly, during the years '86, 

 '87, '90, '91, '93, '94, and '95, the General Manager handled 

 about $5,500 of the funds of the Union, and no one said any- 

 thing about a "loop-hole;" and last year there was very 

 nearly one hundred times as much of the money of the Union 

 in the hands of the General Manager as was in the hands of 

 the Secretary of the North American Bee-Keepers' Association. 

 "Those living in glass houses should not throw stones." 



In referring to the meetings of the Board of Directors he 

 asks, " How are the expenses to be paid ? If mileage and per 

 diem are to be paid. It should be so stated." Well, for once I 

 can agree with his " criticism ;" and as no snch provision is 

 made, the very natural inference would be that "mileage and 

 per diem " are not to be paid them, as is the case with the 

 Advisory Board of the National Bee-Keepers' Union. 



He speaks of a " compulsitory meeting " of th3 Hoard of 

 Directors, and "that the expense of such acompulsitory meet- 

 ing would be no mean item." The "compulsitory" partis 

 the last sentence of Sec. 6, Art. VI., and is no more " corapul- 

 si'.ory" than is the provision in Art. I. of the present National 

 Bee Keepers' Union, which says that it "shall meet an- 

 nually," etc. Now, in the eleven years of its existence has the 

 Union, which "shall meet annually," ever met? and if it has, 

 who paid the " mileage and per diem?" Has tbe Secretary- 

 Treasurer-General-Manager been paying "the mileage and 

 per diem ?" 



" In referring to Art. X. he asks, " Why such tautology ?" 

 I believe I can answer that question quite readily. It is prob- 

 able that those etrgaged in formulating the Constitution 

 (among whom were Prof. Cook, Hon. Eugene Secor, Rev. E. T. 

 Abbott, Hon. E. Whitcomb. R. F Hollerraann, J. T Calvert, 

 L. D. Stilson, Thos. G. Newman, Dr C. C. Miller. A. I. Root, 

 Bro. Ben, Geo. W. Brodbeck, E R. Root, P. A. Gemmill, W. 

 F. Marks, Geo. W. York, Hon. G«o. E Hilton, M. B Holmes, 

 E. S. Lovesy, H. F. Moore, E Kretchmer, with myself and 

 more than a score of others) did not represent nit of the wis- 

 dom there is among bee-keepers. Pages 737 and 738 of the 

 American Bee Journal for Nov. 19, 1896, might be interest- 

 ing reading for Mr. Newman. 



It seems to me that his "criticism " on Sec. 7, Art. VI., is 

 one of fault-finding rather than an effort to aid in so revising 

 it as to make it better. I see nothing in It that would neces- 

 sitate a " complete revision " of it, but I think It would be well 

 to alter it by erasing the words " extra but " in the sentence 

 where it says, " and cause such extra but equal assessments 

 to be made," etc. 



In replyibg to the last two paragraphs of Mr. Newnan's 

 article, 1 will say that the Constitution does not provide for 

 " expensive annual meetings," and I can't understand why he 

 so frequently refers to matters that are not even hinted at in 

 the Constitution, and have iiothing to do with it, unless it be to 

 prejudice members of the National Bee-Keepers' Union against 

 the measure. Here is an example: "If it Is attempted to 

 make it representative, it will fail," etc. Now, there Is not 

 the shadow of a shade of reference in the Constitution to any 

 such attempt. 



It seems to me that, in the last two paragraphs of his 

 "criticism " he directly insults the intelligence of the nearly 

 threescore bee-keepers who "had a hand" in preparing and 

 adopting the Constitution, and shows his lack of consideration 

 for the rights and opinions of others (who may De just as able 

 as he, to say what is the best course to pursue) in assuming 

 that he has a right to " refer back to the next convention at 

 Buffalo for revision," etc. Since when has it been the pre- 

 rogative of the General Manager " to refer back." unasked, a 

 matter that the United Slates Bee-Keepers' Union has re- 

 quested the Advisory Board of the National Bee-Keepers' 

 Union to submit to a vote of its members, quite a number of 

 whom are members of both organizations ? and since when, 

 and by whom, has it been decided that the General Manager 

 has the power to say that a body of beekeepers — some of 

 whom rank as the peers of any other bee-keepers — has not tbe 

 right of petition ? If he has this power, the sooner we know 

 It the better; and If he has 7U)t this power, and he insists on 

 exercising it, the sooner his successor is chosen the better. 



The closing sentence of his article is tbe sumniing-iip of 

 the whole matter. Here it is: "There Is therefore, nothing 

 left for its advocates to do but to await tbe action of the con- 

 vention next year ; at least, so It It seems to, 

 " Yours for every progressive step." 

 Shades of democracy I " Where are we at ?" Mr. Editor, 

 wouldn't that sentence look a little more complete if put in 



