Turn MMSRXCKINI BEB JOURNSIL. 



667 



LAW. 



Sending Bees by Mail is Notv 

 Slatulory Law. 



Written for the American Bee JoiirTial 



BY C. J. UOBIKSON. 



On pages 581 and 582 the subject of 

 shipping bees by mail transit is dis- 

 cussed with pertinency to tlie bee- 

 business. Mr. A. I. Root expresses 

 fear that the mail " department " will 

 get down on sending queens in the 

 mail, and again exclude them by a 

 ruling of the postal chief. He fears 

 that the " trial package " sent in the 

 mail by Mr. Pratt to Mr. Dooliltle " is 

 a direct violation of our present laws." 

 It seems that our active business friend, 

 A. I., has not made himself conversant 

 with "our postal laws." 



Referring to our postal law, it will 

 be seen by reference to the statutes re- 

 lating to mail regulations, that Section 

 372 of our postal laws, approved by 

 Congress March 3, 1886, provides that 

 certain articles therein mentioned are 

 mailable as " 4th class matter." The 

 8th clause of that Act reads : " Queen- 

 bees and their attendant bees maj' be 

 sent in the mails when properlj' put 

 up so as not to injure the persons of 

 those handling the mails, nor soil the 

 mail-bags or their contents." 



Please note that it is not left with 

 the Postmaster General in his discre- 

 tionary jurisdiction to rule that queen- 

 bees and their attendant bees must be 

 excluded as maihible matter, as he did 

 many years ago. Now, it is statutory 

 law that bees are mailable matter. 



Our worthy friend, A. I. Root, men- 

 tioned that he " would not blame the 

 department for shutting down on ns ;" 

 none will ever •' blame the depart- 

 ment " again for "shutting down on 

 us," no, indeed, it canHAo it ; Congress 

 holds the helm of the mails, and have 

 ' granted " us " the right to send through 

 the mails, queen-bees and attendant 

 bees, without restriction as to the num- 

 ber of attendant bees, and the wording 

 of the law may be construed to include 

 five attendant bees or five million, pro- 

 viding the packages do not exceed 4 

 pounds. 



The 9th clause of the same Section, 

 372, mentions that "Hard candies or 

 confectioner}'" may be sent through 

 I the mails when properlj' put up. So 

 go ahead, Messrs. Pratt and Doolittle, 

 and if you fail to push the business, 

 very likely our enterprising friend, 

 Mr. A. I. Root, will dispel his doubts 

 and fears, dry up his mournful tears, 

 and take the lead. 



Mr. Root mentioned that " Prof. 

 Cook was instrumental in getting 

 queens through the mails when they 

 were once cut off (?)" I do not like 



to dispute, nor am I willing to rob one 

 of glory, liut wlien I read the assertion 

 I was a bit surprised that Mr. Root 

 would entertain a superstitious belief 

 that Prof. Cook is to be credited with 

 all tlie honor and glory as having ac- 

 complished what many others, equally 

 as great and good, have done jointly. 

 Is Gen. D. L. Adair, of Hawesville, 

 Ky., wlio first took the bull (P. M. G.) 

 by the hoi-ns, to be ignored ? And who 

 had a telling voice in framing the Sec- 

 tion, 372 ? It was not Prof. Cook. 

 Has Mr. Root forgotten that the Na- 

 tional Bee-Keepers' Convention took 

 up the subject and appointed a " com- 

 mittee " to inlluence the chief of the 

 " Department " to rescind his ruling, 

 and permit postmasters to mail bees ? 



I mailed the first queen and a few 

 attendant worker-bees that ever was 

 sent by mail transit, and I have been 

 cognizant of the rulings and the laws 

 relating to bees by mail. I sent that 

 first queen to Rev. L. L. Langstroth, in 

 the summer of 18t)3 — I suppose he has 

 my letters on file — and naturally I 

 would observe what transpired con- 

 cerning the business. The idea of 

 sending bees by mail was forced upon 

 me as a necessity. I resided 20 miles 

 distant from an express office. 



I had a hand in importing the first 

 Italian queens that landed on this con- 

 tinent, that bred queen progenj-. P. 

 J. Mahan, of Philadelphia, went and 

 bought the queens, and bred queens in 

 his apiary, and he sent queens to me 

 by express. I vvas bothered about 

 getting them, and it occurred to me 

 that they might be sent by mail. I 

 wrote to Mr. Langstroth, asking his 

 opinion in the matter. He answered, 

 saying that he considered it not prac- 

 tical. I ever have a mind that prompts 

 me independently, and I caught a 

 black queen, put her into a cage with 

 a few worker-bees, and put all in the 

 mail-pouch that was borne aw.ay on a 

 stage-coach. 



A few days later I received a pack- 

 age, per mail, from Mr. Langstroth, 

 containing a fine Italian queen, but 

 she survived only an hour or so. She 

 and Ihe few workers were daubed, and 

 the workers were dead. He had in- 

 formed me that the bees I mailed to 

 him were in fine condition when re- 

 ceived. I informed him that his at- 

 tempt was a failure ; that the bees were 

 daubed, and he sent me another queen 

 which came safelj-. 



Such was the origin of sending bees 

 by mail. At that time Mr. Langstroth 

 wrote me a complimentary letter, men- 

 tioning that I was fairly entitled to the 

 credit of the invention — shipping bees 

 by mail ; also that lie contemplated a 

 new edition of his book, and took 

 pleasure of giving me the honor of 

 being the originator of the plan. 



The mailing of bees has proved a 

 great boon to the bee-fraternity, as it 

 did to Mr. Langstroth, yet he ha.* 

 ignored me, even though he promised 

 to do me justice. Of course I do not 

 feel toward liim as many others do. 

 A few years ago I wrote, asking hinv 

 if he remembered the matter, and put 

 the question, whether or not he knew 

 that I was the first who suggested the 

 idea of sending bees bj' mail, and the 

 first to put it in practice. I suspected 

 that some upstart would claim the 

 credit, and that " Father Langstroth " 

 would forget it, unless I had his ac- 

 knowledgement in writing. He an- 

 swered my question (as I took it) 

 rather grudgingly, mentioning," So fai* 

 as I know, you were the first to mail 

 queen-bees." I am human, and wa» 

 feeling unkindly toward him in return 

 for his disrespect to me. so when I re- 

 ceived the cold reply, I waxed — well, 

 just as anybody would. 



Mr. Langstroth can correct me if I 

 am in error, for it does not depend 

 wholly upon our stateiuents. I feel 

 that I have reason to remember him as 

 treating me unfairly ; hence I have 

 criticised him not in a friendly style. 



P. S. — In my article on page 586, a 

 slight error occurred. In the second 

 column, and last line but one, it reads, 

 " Ameki(;an Bee Journal," instead of 

 " Q. B. ./.." as I had written in. Editor 

 Pratt commented on one of my articles, 

 and I aimed a joke on him, in answer 

 to his humorous mention of " beauty." 

 The notion is current that " beauty " is- 

 — in women and bee.s — an indication 

 of feebleness, but none attempt to ex- 

 plain or offer logical reasons in support 

 of such a doctrine. 



Richfield, N. Y. 



[Mr. Robinson misunderstood Mr. 

 A. I. Root's statement. The latter re- 

 ferred to the year 1879, when Prof. 

 Cook, D. A. Jones, and T. G. Newmaa 

 were appointed a committee to try to- 

 get " queen-bees and their attendant* 

 re-admitted to the mails," from which 

 thej' had been excluded when framings 

 a new law. 



Mr. Robinson refei's to the original 

 time of admitting bees to the mails, in 

 1863 — fifteen years prior to the excel- 

 lent work done by Prof. Cook, Presi- 

 dent Willitts, and others, in re-admit- 

 ting queen-bees to the mails. 



We are sorry that Mr. V. J. Robin- 

 son should have any unfriendly feel- 

 ings towards Father Langstroth — than 

 whom no man lives who is more hon- 

 orable and just, as well as anxious to 

 give every man Ids just due. — Eu.] 



