T'Mig m'mmMiGmn mm,m jqhrv^ki^. 



779 



Tho " Ricliardsou " case in Indiana 

 was dismissed by the Court when it was 

 found tliat the Union liad to be fouglit 

 as well as the poor gardener. Tliat was 

 too much for the enemies of the pursuit 

 of bee-keeping to attempt. 



The case of S. W. Rich, of New York, 

 was a suit by a disagreealile neighbor, to 

 compel the removal of his home apiary 

 outside of the city limits. He also sued 

 for $1,200 as damages for injuries (?) 

 inflicted by the bees upon his person and 

 property. The jury, from which every 

 pcr.son having bees was excluded, gave 

 liim but nix cents to cover wounded 

 feelings and damaged projierty ! ! 



This virtually declared that the bees 

 were not a nuisance. Tlie result is an 

 overwhelming defeat for the enemies of 

 the pursuit of bee-lvceping, and another 

 victory for the National Bee-Keepers' 

 Union. 



BEE-KEEPING NOT A NUISANCE. 



Tlie Croiiming Victory was obtained in 

 the Arkadelphia case, in Arkansas. 

 There, by the enforcement of an unlawful 

 Ordinance of the city, j\Ir. Clark was 

 deprived of his liberty, and the constitu- 

 tional riglits guaranteed to every citizen 

 of the United States. Even granting 

 that it was wrong in Mr. Clark not to 

 obey the city authorities, he should have 

 had a speedy trial by an impartial jury 

 — all of wliich was denied him ! Even 

 when released under a writ of latbeas 

 corpus, he was, witliin three hours, re- 

 arrested and fined. After demanding a 

 change of venue, because of the prejudice 

 of the Mayor, that functionary again 

 fined him, denying him liis constitutional 

 rights. 



This case was appealed to the Supreme 

 Court. The best legal talent was 

 employed by the Union — Judge Williams 

 and Major Witherspoon. The result was 

 that the Supreme Court decided that the 

 City Ordinance against bee-keeping was 

 " illegal and void " — and that the keeping 

 of bees was nut a nuisance ! 



When the prosecution realized that the 

 bee-keepers had an organized body for 

 defending the pursuit against the 

 malicious attacks of the ignorant and 

 the prejudiced, it wcakcnci} — it tried " to 

 hedge " — was willing to dismiss all the 

 cases against Mr. Clark on a pretended 

 informality in his bonds ! 



Here we have another result of the 

 benefits to be derived from organization 

 and combined effort. The members of 

 the Bee-Keepers' Union have many 

 triumphs to fee! proud over, and this 

 adds another laurel. 



"A working bee but seldom 

 Turns from iiis way to sting ; 

 But he must have a world of room 

 To give his body swing. 



That which he claims is yielded. 

 We're apt to think him right — 



Who works to win, who wins to beep. 

 And can both work and fight." 



IT IS KESrECTED. 



The Decision, and arguments of Judge 

 Williams have been printed in pamphlet 

 form, and it has since prevented scores of 

 lawsuits in many places, where Ihe first 

 steps had been taken. 



The City Council of Port Wayne, 

 Ind., passed an Ordinance against keep- 



ing bees witliin the city limits. H 

 enforced, it would practically wipe out 

 the pursuit of bee-keeping there. Such 

 a |)ressur(^ was brought to bear by the 

 bee-keepers, backed up by the Union, 

 that no attemjit is made to enforce that 

 Ordinance. 



The McCormick bill introduced into 

 the Legislat\ire, intending to "wipe 

 apiculture out of Michigan," as Prof. 

 Cook stated it. raised such a buzzing 

 about his ears that it was tabled on his 

 own motion, (ind there died. 



GETTING DECISIONS OF LAW. 



In the first case defended by the 

 Union, Judge Clementson remarked : 



This case involves new points of law. upon 

 which there are no rulings of the Supreme 

 Court. We have no law upon which toinstruct 

 a jury. 



That was the Freeborn case, in Wiscon- 

 sin, which the Union had defended so 

 vigorously that the complainant lost his 

 grip in the first round,and it was literally 

 kicked out of Court. 



In the '-Ricli" case also, the Judge 

 complained that there were no precedents 

 or decisions of law, and, as a result, he 

 ruled very erroneously ! 



The Manager of the Union, upon 

 consulting with tlie Attorneys for the 

 Union, concluded that the first things 

 needed were " Decisions and Rulings of 

 the Supreme Court ;" and if these could 

 be obtained by earnest and diligent work, 

 as soon as possible, the bee-keepers' battle 

 would be half won. 



USING DECISIONS OF LAW. 



That tills was wisdom, has been shown 

 in all the later cases. Just as soon as 

 the law is threatened on the pursuit of 

 bee-keeping by some ignorant or jealous 

 individual, we salt Mm with decisions of 

 the Supreme Court, and when well 

 '■ rubbed in," he is " cured !" That ends 

 the trouble I 



If a City Council or Town Board is 

 anywhere troubled by a complainant,and 

 asked to pass an Ordinance "declaring 

 bee-keei)ing a nuisance, and prohibiting 

 it within the corporate limits," etc., every 

 member, together with the Mayor, the 

 City Attorney, and the one making the 

 complaint, are all dosed with the same 

 pamphlet, and the matter is at once 

 dropped — killed by the " Decision of the 

 Supreme Court of Arkansas !" 



We now have Decisions and Rulings of 

 the Supreme Court that are worth to us 

 many times their cost. They not only 

 save trouble and annoyance to bee- 

 keepers, but expense to the Union — by 

 preventing lawsuits ! 



THE UNION COMMANDS RESPECT. 



That Decision is our "Corner-stone 

 of Defense I" It calls a halt in all such 

 "careers of madness," and demands 

 justice for the 300,000 Americans who 

 are now engaged in the keeping of bees ! 



" What makes a business respected ?'' 

 asked the President of the Union, and he 

 answers his own question thus : " Its 

 usefulness to humanity. What makes a 

 noisy, dirty rolling-mill respected ? Its 

 usefulness. What makes horses and 

 horse-stables respected in large cities ? 



Their usefulness. \Vhy do we respect 

 the constant blowing of steam whistles 

 in large cities ? Their usefulness. Who 

 is a more useful member of our great 

 pulsating humanity, than he who gathers 

 together a wealth that wfuild otherwise 

 be lost? Who accomiilishes this in its 

 entirety more than th(^ honey-producer? 

 Why is not our business respected ? I 

 think it is. because the general public 

 are not informed of the fact that lioney- 

 produeing, with modern fixtures and 

 methods, is a great business, and of 

 value alike to the bee-keeper and to his 

 country." 



When the people are aware of tlie 

 extent of the pursuit and its usefulness, 

 they will respect it ! And. more, when 

 they nndeistand that bee-keepers stand 

 by one another, and have a Union for 

 Defense, they will respect it ! 



KILLED BY THE LAW. 



All the late cases against bee-keepers 

 have been killed, by reading the decisions 

 of the Supreme Court of Arkansas ? And 

 by a judicious course, we imagine that 

 all trouble and annoyance to bee-keepers 

 in their legitimate business can be 

 averted by appealing to the intelligence 

 of the public, and its sense of right. 



Lamentation without effort to over- 

 come difficulties, only exhibits our 

 weakness. We are here to " work out" 

 our deliverance from surrounding obsta- 

 cles — to ride above the storms — to defeat 

 the machinations of our enemies — to 

 cause trutli and riglit to triumph. 



To allow decisions of Judges and 

 Rulings of Courts adverse to Apiculture 

 to have been placed on record, because 

 of our indifference — would have been 

 the greatest mistake of the age ! It 

 would have entailed disaster generally to 

 all the interests of bee-keeping ! 



That decision of the Supreme Court 

 will do more to guarantee to bee-keepers 

 their i-(V;)its and privileges, than anything 

 ever yet achieved ! Should the Union 

 cease to exist to-day, that Decision will 

 be its " crown of glory " and its generous 

 benediction. Thomas G. Newman, 

 General Manager. 



A vote of thanks was given to the 

 National Bee-Keepers' Union and to its^ 

 General Manager, for the excellent 

 report just made, and the report was 

 by vote adopted. 



INCORPORATION. 



The committee on Organization and 

 Incorpoi'ation reported, and read the 

 following Constitution as re-written : 



ARTICLE I.— Name. 

 This organization shall be known as 

 "The North American Bee-Keepers' Asso- 

 ciation." and shall include in its territory 

 all of the United States and Canada. 



ARTICLE II.— Object. 

 Its object shall be to promote the general 

 interests of the pursuit of bee-culture- 

 throughout North America. 



ARTICLE III.— Membership. 

 1. This Association shall consist of its 

 officers, life members,, annual members, 

 honorary members,delegates from alfiliated 

 local associations, and ex-presidents. 



