802 



iTK® MBiMMicffiH mMM j&jsmnmi^. 



Had it not been for the National Bee- 

 Keepers' Union, that furnished the " sinews 

 of war," this case might have gone against 

 us by default. 



A case so wisely managed, and so sucess- 

 fully terminated, ought to inspire confi- 

 dence enough in the Union, that its treas- 

 ury shall never lack "the needful" to de- 

 fend every worthy case. 



Mr. J. E. Pond, a lawyer of North 

 Attleboro, Ma-ss., gives his opinion of 

 the case in these words : 



I have read the exhaustive argument of 

 Judge S. W. Williams with pleasure, and as 

 a touiycr, I wish to say that no court can 

 honestly differ from it or decide against it. 

 "When I say " exhaustive," I mean just 

 what I say. It covers the whole ground ; 

 the decision in the Clark case must be for 

 the defendant on constitutional law, and 

 local law cannot avoid the Constitution. 



Mr. R. McKnight, of Owen Sound, 

 Ont., records his opinion of tlie Arka- 

 delphia case thus : 



That defense is worth a dollar to every 

 bee-keeper in the land. The judgment that 

 followed it, established a precedent of great 

 importance to bee-keepers, and will prob- 

 ably be quoted in the courts, through gen- 

 erations to come. 



Mr. C. H. Dibbern philosophizes after 

 this manner : 



This decision is of real value to bee-keep- 

 ers, and is the first case of the kind decided 

 by the Supreme Court of any State. Here- 

 after people having imaginaiy grievances 

 against bee-keepers will likely think twice 

 before commencing petty suits. Bee-keep- 

 ers will hereafter be responsible for the 

 real damage that may be caused by their 

 bees, just like any other property. More 

 than that, no bee-keeper ought to ask. 



Mr. Clark, being a poor man, could not 

 have afforded the expense to carry the case 

 to the higher court, and employ first-class 

 legal talent. The management of the 

 Union deserve great credit in this, as in all 

 other cases it has ever taken up — never 

 having lost a case. 



The first thing the Union does when a 

 case of any member comes before it, is to 

 determine if the case is a just one. If not, 

 he is advised at once, and a satisfactory 

 settlement is soon made. If he is in the 

 right, he is helped in his defense to the last. 



Mr. A. I. Root, editor of Gleanings in 

 Bee-Culture, remarks thus about the 

 Arkadelphia case : 



We are not in favor of trades-unions in 

 general, but the Bee-Keepers' Union, under 

 its present able management, we are sure 

 has been productive of good. After we 

 have a few more precedents established 

 like the Arkadelphia case, outside parties 

 •wUl be slow to declare bees a nuisance. 



The National Bee-Keepers' Union is 

 unlike "trades-unions." It simply 

 sets up a defenne when its members are 

 unjustly attacked I It will not defend 

 even a member, unless his cause is 

 just; and attacks growing out of ignor- 

 ance, jealousy, prejudice, and the like, 

 which threaten the pursuit in general, 

 should always be repulsed vigorously ! 



The " Union " orders no strikes, and 

 makes no attacks — it simply defends 

 the pursuit of bee-keeping, and fights 

 in a moral and legal waj', for right, 

 justice and truth ! 



OUK CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 



Judge Williams argued in a masterly 

 manner, and was sustained by the 

 court, that the power is not given by 

 the Constitution of the United States 

 to prohibit bees by Statute. We have 

 a Constitutional right to keep bees. 



Many persons are frightened by the 

 fact that the bees possess a weapon of 

 defense, and thereupon declare them 

 a nuisance. They never stopped to 

 think that the " sting " was provided 

 by Nature for its defense, and to in- 

 sure the perpetuation of its kind ! If 

 an attack is made upon its home, the 

 sting is its only defense — but it is an 

 efteotive one ! When away from its 

 home, it seldom volunteers an attack ! 



It was asserted by the prosecution, 

 that bees were a nuisance because 

 they were liable to sting children. 

 Judge Williams met it with this un- 

 answerable argument : " It is not 

 true ; unless children molest them at 

 their hives, or catch them. But be- 

 cause a domestic insect may sting or 

 hurt under some circumstances, no 

 more makes it a nuisance — per se — and 

 liable to prohibition, than the fact that 

 a horse maj' kick, may run away in 

 the harness and kill a child ; or an ox 

 may gore persons with its horns, 

 would make these animals nuisances 

 2}er se." 



Cases are numerous where children 

 have been injured, and even killed, by 

 the kick of a horse, by being run over 

 by a cow, the bite of a dog, or the 

 scratching of a cat. The Judge asks, 

 " Shall the keeping of horses and cows 

 be forbidden by an ordinance ?" Cer- 

 tainly not ! No one would think of 

 such a thing for a moment ! Domes- 

 ticated bees must have an equal chance 

 with all domesticated animals ! 



ADVANTAGES OF THE DECISION. 



A condensed history of this case, to- 

 gether with the argument of the coun- 

 sel for the Union, and the decision of 

 the Supreme Court, has been printed 

 by the Union, and a copy thereof will 

 be sent to each member for perusal. 



These pamphlets have already saved 

 much trouble, and prevented several 

 law-suits. A case in point, and one 

 which illustrates the moral effect of 

 being a member of the National Bee- 

 Keepers' Union, is as follows : 



Rev. Robt. Carver, of Manton, Mich., 

 a member of the Union, wi'ote to the 

 Manager that he was sued by a jealous 

 neighbor to appear before a prejudiced 

 Justice of the Peace, for maintaining a 

 nuisance. The damage was placed at 

 $100 for trespassing bees, and threats 

 were made to drive him and his bees 

 out of the village. 



The Manager of the National Bee- 

 Keepers' Union counseled him as to 



what to do, and how to proceed ; told 

 him to hire a good lawyer, and assured 

 him that the Union would stand by him 

 as long as he was in the right, and de- 

 fend his rights in a moral as well as a 

 financial way. 



The case was called, and an adjourn- 

 ment was made, Mr. Carver retained 

 a lawyer, showed him the letter and 

 documents of the "Union." He read 

 the latter carefully, then went and 

 talked with the opposite attorney, and 

 some of those incensed against the 

 bees. The result was that they were 

 quite willing to compromise the affair. 

 By mutual agreement the suit was 

 dropped, leaving the parties who 

 brought suit to pay all costs. 



Mr. Carver writes as follows : "A 

 friend of mine happened in, when 

 several of them were talking about the 

 matter, and he heard the Village Mar- 

 shal say, that if they went on with the 

 case, they would have all the bee-fra- 

 ternity to fight, and would have their 

 hands full." 



ITS MOEAX EFFECT. 



This is another triumph for the 

 Union. The moral eflect of being a 

 member of an organization for the de- 

 fense of the pursuit, was that the pros- 

 ecuting party withdrew from the field 

 and paid all the costs ! 



Several other cases, similar to the 

 above, might be cited, all serving ta 

 illustrate the fact, that belonging to 

 such an organization is of itself not 

 only an honor, but also a power in the 

 defensive ! If a jealous or prejudiced 

 neighbor finds that a bee-keeper be- 

 longs to a " Union " for the defense of 

 the pursuit, he will think twice before 

 rushing into a lawsuit. 



The decision in the Supreme Court 

 of Arkansas will do more to guarantee 

 bee-keepers their rights, than anything 

 that has ever been done in America. 

 If the Union never does another thing, 

 and goes out of existence at once, that 

 decision will be its "crown of glory," 

 and its generous benediction. 



THE "S. W. rich" lawsuit. 



This is quite another thing from the 

 Arkadelphia case. Mr. Olmsted sued 

 S. W. Rich for $1,200 damages for in- 

 juries (?) inflicted by the bees upon his 

 person and property, but the jury 

 (from which every person having bees 

 was excluded) gave him but six cents 

 to cover wounded feelings and dam- 

 aged property ! ! 



This has been appealed to the Su- 

 preme Court, and the decision of the 

 lower court affirmed. Whether to 

 carry this case up to the Court of Ap- 

 peals is the question. If that Court 

 should pass upon the merits of the 

 case, it will be worth the money it will 

 cost, which will be about $500. 



