100 aphidfe I would find working, gener- 

 ally, from 2 to 4 ants. It is assumed by 

 many scientists that aphidje suck the juice, 

 assimilate from it what they need and eject 

 the balance, in about the same way as our 

 beloved bees do ; for bees change the sac- 

 charine matter they bring home, to a great 

 extent, before emptying into the cell, which 

 has also been proved by better men than I 

 claim to be. 



Mr. Marshall, I trust, will not feel offend- 

 ed, but false theories should be contra- 

 dicted or disproved whenever seen. If 

 more light is wanted, my lantern is always 

 burning. Chas. Sonne. 



Sigel, 111., March 10, 1878. 



For the American Bee Journal. 



Patents— Answer to D. D. Palmer. 



No ; we, too, don't like patents. They 

 cost money, Mr. Palmer. But Mr. Lang- 

 stroth has lived to see his original arrange- 

 ment become the standard bee hive — the 

 best and most popular hive in use. While 

 he is not reported rich from his patent, 

 several not over-scrupulous parties have 

 made small fortunes by selling his inven- 

 tion. The fittest survive, and Mr. Lang- 

 stroth has the honor of survival ; yet, 

 several of those same parties who copied 

 his invention, changing only the form, and 

 calling it an improvement, after his patent 

 expired, became suddenly convinced that 

 for all kinds of purposes, the regular stand- 

 ard Langstroth frame is best. ISome of 

 these parties— sxirvive also ! 



Every honorable bee-keeper knows and 

 gives Mr. Langstroth the credit of all that 

 he claimed in his hive. 



The honey extractor has been extensively 

 sold, and is a valid and real invention.— 

 Tlie inventor did not take out letters pat- 

 ent, and as a result, not one-half of the bee- 

 keepers using the exti'actor even know the 

 name or nationality of the inventer. And, 

 strange to say, he has not got rich from the 

 generositi/ of those who do not like patents. 

 Yet, like Mr. Langstroth, he survives! 



Mr. Quinby made, advertised and sold a 

 bellows smoker. As to its originality, 1 am 

 unacquainted. Either because he did not 

 get it patented, or that it was not coveted, 

 or that certain unscrupulous parties who 

 lived in his day and generation feared his 

 influence, it remains to this day the private 

 porperty of the lamented Quinby estate. 



Bingham, in the spring of 1874, showed at 

 the Michigan Bee-keepers' Association a 

 direct-draft smoker, which he afterward 

 added to and subtracted from, fand other- 

 wise changed until the public were in- 

 formed, at the Michigan Bee-keepers' Asso- 

 ciation of Dec. 187(5, that on the 1st of 

 March, 1877, the said Bingham's bellows 

 smoker would be offered for sale. The 

 smoker was shown so covered up in its 

 main features that no one knew anything 

 about it, except that it burnt sound, dry 

 stove-wood, and would not go out on any 

 reasonable neglect. Orders were taken in 

 the convention from all but 1 or 3 of the 

 members present. These orders were filled 

 according to agreement in March, 1877, at 

 which time a smoker was sent to the 



American Bee Journal, which gave the 

 following notice and criticism : 



Bingham Smoker.—" Friend Bingham has sent 

 one to tliis office. It is similar in sliape to the Quin- 

 by, but of larger tube, and heavier bellows. It burns 

 any hard, dry wood, and keeps it Ignited. After 

 laying it down five minutes, it has sufficient Are to 

 start again. It is supplied with full instructions for 

 use, and will be kept for sale at this office." 



One was also sent to Gleanings, and a 

 month later the following notice and criti- 

 cism appeared : 



" Mr. Bingham has very kindly sent us one of his 

 smokers, which works just about as well as Quinby's, 

 but so far as we see, no better. It is by no means as 

 neat as the Quinby, and is much more cheaply got 

 up. With our tools and machinery, it would be an 

 easy matter for us to make them by the quantity for 

 50c. each. Why can they not be sold for an even 

 dollar ? 1 confess I hardly know where duty lies in 

 such matters." 



As I had never had much knowledge of 

 the Magazine I did not send a smoker to 

 Mr. King, who says in a private letter that 

 it I had so done, he would have given it a 

 good notice, as it was far, very tar better 

 than the Quinby. 



As to the cost of making smokers I knew 

 very little at that time, but as I was com- 

 pelled to make them largely, I soon found 

 that the price adopted as fair and honora- 

 ble by Mr. Quinby, without a patent, would 

 be ample for me with one, should I be com- 

 pelled to get one to secure to myself the 

 credit, and to my family the benefit of the 

 invention. Accordingly his prices were 

 adopted. As Prof. Cook's article, to which 

 you refer, refers to the smoker question in 

 part, I would ask with all due respect, Was 

 the price of the Quinby smoker, vi^hich was 

 so generously given and donated by Mr. 

 Quinby to the cause he loved, so reasonable 

 as to be an honor and a protection to him ? 

 If such was tlie case it was the precaution 

 which I took, probably, which so turned 

 the minds of those who so kindly adver- 

 tised my humble invention, without my 

 consent or credit ; and is, therefore, a large 

 card in favor of procuring patents, as a 

 means of iiitroducing valuable improve- 

 ments to actual consumers, while it does 

 not stimulate patents the originals of 

 which are not coveted. T. F. Bingham. 



Abronia, Mich., May 7, 1878. 



For the American Bee Journal, 



Furze, as Forage. 



Mr. T. G. McGaw, in the April number, 

 gives Mr. Eldridge's description of furze, 

 but really does not do the plant justice, in 

 an economical point of view, as to its value 

 in agriculture. In the Chemistry of Food 

 in relation to the Breeding and Feeding of 

 Live Stock by Charles A. Cameron, Ph. D., 

 M. D., &c. &c. 1868, he writes as follows :— 



" This plant, instead of being unprofita- 

 ble, deserves to rank amongst the most 

 valuable vegetable cultivated for the use of 

 domestic animals. It grows and flourishes 

 under conditions that materially affect 

 almost every other fodder or green crop. — 

 It is rather improved by a cold tempera- 

 ture ; it thrives best when supplied with 

 abundant rain, but can survive a long 

 drought." 



