'@4-i)-(i-#(i4-4<i4-i>-<i4'44-i)-(i"4-#&'44-(i)'i)-(i-(i^' 



OEORQK W. YORK, Editor. 





^ 



I- 



e 



.^•(f'(f'(f'(f'(f-(f-f)«(|)-^'(|)-(f«^'^<'<f-f)''^^^ 



40th YEAR, 



CHICAGO, ILL,, JANUARY 25, 1900, 



No, 4. 



Report of National Bee-Keepers' Union for 1899. 



BY THOMAS G. NEWMAN. 



IN making this, my fifteenth and last annual report to the 

 members of the National Bee-Keepers' Union, I labor 

 under peculiar disadvantages. My eyes refuse to serve 

 me to see or read anything, and I am obliged to say that I 

 shall be compelled to retire from the active management of 

 the Union on account of this disa- 

 bility. 



During the past 15 years, I have 

 labored assiduously to maintain 

 bee-keepers' rights and defend them 

 when assailed by jealous and envi- 

 ous persons. In this work, the 

 Union has been very fortunate. It 

 has won victories over strong op- 

 position, and judges, courts and 

 jurors have affirmed the rights of 

 bee-keepers who have been de- 

 fended by the Union. 



On account of the short crop of 

 honey in nearly all parts of the 

 United States, during the past 

 year, there has been less manifes- 

 tation than usual of the animosity 

 of the enemies of the pursuit. 

 When prosperity is not very appa- 

 rent, envious neighbors do not 

 usually trouble apiarists, or seek 

 to abridge their rights and privi- 

 leges. The National Bee-Keepers' 

 Union has, as usual, in all instan- 

 ces maintained its record of tri- 

 umph by either smoothing out the 

 difficulties or crushing the oppo- 

 sition. 



Frank S. Buchheim. — Hardly 

 had the new-year dawned, when I was called upon for fur- 

 ther advic^Tn the case of Frank S. Buchheim. In ray last 

 report I detailed the case of his arrest and imprisonment 

 for keeping bees in the corporate limits of Santa Ana, Cal., 

 of the trial and subsequent appeal to the Superior Court, 

 and triumph therein. 



In the meantime, his bees had been removed, and the 

 question came up concerning their return to the spot from 

 which they had been taken. I gave counsel to Mr. Buch- 

 heim in this matter, and all trouble seems to have been 

 averted, fully ending the difficulty. 



Tkoublesome Neighbor Foued.— Last February I re- 

 ceived a letter of complaint from Mr. R, h. Meade, of 



Thomas G. Newman. 



Ontario, Canada, stating that he had received a threaten- 

 ing letter from a lawyer, who had been employed by his 

 neighbor, who complained about bees alighting on his 

 bushes in swarming-time. As manager of the National 

 Bee-Keepers' Union, I wrote a letter to his neighbor, show- 

 ing the rights and privileges of apiarists, quoting general 

 law on pursuing and capturing swarms of bees, and advised 

 him not to interfere with Mr. Meade in his business, or at- 

 tempt to abridge his rights as a citizen. I sent him copies 

 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, concern- 

 ing bees, advising him to read them personally, and also to 

 present them to his lawyer. This was no doubt done, and 

 produced the desired result, nothing further having been 

 heard from that quarter. 



Poisoning Bees. — Last March, George W. Woodberry, 

 of Los Angeles Co., Calif., complained that a fruit-drying 

 establishment in the proximity of his apiary had exposed 

 poisoned sweets to entice his bees 

 and poison them. I reviewed the 

 whole matter, considered all the cir- 

 cumstances and surroundings, and 

 advised Mr. Woodberry as to the 

 best course to pursue, promising to 

 write to the fruit-drying establish- 

 ment just before time for their oper- 

 ations for the season, and endeavor 

 to amicably arrange matters so as 

 to prevent the destruction of the 

 bees, as well as to secure their em- 

 ployees from being annoyed by the 

 bees. As the honey season was a 

 failure, no further trouble occurred 

 in that direction, but the foundation 

 is laid for amicable arrangements 

 during another season. 



Making Laws Against Bees. — 

 M. Hettel, of Madison Co., 111., en- 

 tered complaint last spring that cer- 

 tain persons in his neighborhood 

 were endeavoring to excite the peo- 

 ple on the subject of excluding bees 

 from the city limits, by passing an 

 ordinance to compel their removal, 

 and sent a clipping from the local 

 paper concerning the matter. I ad- 

 vised him to keep perfectly quiet, 

 and let the people do just as they 

 chose, because they co"ld not make an unconstitutional law 

 constitutional by their foolishly voting it to be a law. I 

 sent copies of the Supreme Court decision and other printed 

 matter for distribution to those who would read them, in- 

 structing Mr. Hettel to secure the services of a good lawyer 

 to look after the interests of the bees. This action quieted 

 down the excitement and left Mr. Hettel in full possession 

 of his rights and privileges as a bee-keeper. 



Bees Trouble a Neighbor. — Fred H. Fargo, of Gen- 

 esee Co., N. Y., stated that bees had stung a neighbor and 

 his horse, while working near his apiary ; that he had en- 

 deavored to rent the land from his neighbor which was con- 

 tiguous to his apiary, and thus prevent a recurrence of the 



