388 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



June 1, 1905 



time. But it goes every month into over a 

 million homes. Think of it ! But the League 

 would perhaps take only about one-eighth of 

 a page in that Journal, if it went into it at 

 all. It would not pay to take say a one-inch 

 space in such a publication. 



Let us assure bee-keepers that the Execu- 

 tive Board of the League will not do anything 

 rash, or without due consideration. They all 

 desire only the best interests of the pursuit of 

 bee-keeping, for, their own success, like that 

 of the honey-producers, depends upon the 

 prosperity and success to be derived from the 

 production and sale of honey. 



Use of Springs In Supers 



Super springs are found on the list of bee- 

 keepers' supplies; but it is doubtful that they 

 are used as generally as they would be if their 

 advantages were known more fully. The 

 common way of wedging up a super of sec- 

 tions with a straight stick may seem quite 

 satisfactory to one who has never given the 

 matter much attention, because when the 



wedge is first put in the sections are pressed 

 together very tightly— more tightly, indeed, 

 than the springs — but sections have a way of 

 shrinking, especially when wet before being 

 put together, as so frequently they must be to 

 prevent breaking, and so it often happens 

 that by the time the supers are put on the 

 hives the wedges have dropped down. Springs 

 accommodate themselves to this shrinking of 

 the sections, and although the pressure is not 

 quite so much, there is no entire cessation of 

 pressure as with the wooden wedges— if 

 straight sticks can be called wedges. 



Another thing : There is no little variation 

 in the size of wedge needed, and it is not 

 convenient to have wedges of varying size; 

 the result is that some supers are too loosely 

 wedged, and some so tightly that there is 

 danger that the supers may be pulled apart at 

 the corners; the springs accommodate them- 

 selves to these different sizes. 



The springs are easier put in ; easier to take 

 out. 



It is an easy thing to try springs in a few 



supers. If they prove an advantage the num- 

 ber can be increased. 



The First Convention of Bee-Keepers Held in the United States 



of America 



BY DR. G. BOHRER 



During the summer and fall of 1870 the mat- 

 ter of calling a convention of bee-keepers of 

 the United States and Canada was agitated, 

 and resulted in the decision that it should be 

 held in the city of Indianapolis. It was held 

 Dec 21 of that year. Mr. N. C. Mitchell, who 

 was then publishing what was known as the 

 Illustrated Bee .Journal, in Indianapolis, was 

 oneof the prime movers in arousing interest 

 in favor of a convention of national character. 

 His efforts were seconded by such men as 

 Adam Grimm and A. H. Hart, of Wisconsin ; 

 E Rude and A. F. Moon, of Michigan; Elisha 

 Gallup, of Iowa; M. M. Baldridge,ot Illinois, 

 and others of that State whose names I can 

 not now recall ; Aaron Benedict, of Ohio ; 1 . 

 R Allen, of New York; Dr. Hamlin, of Ten- 

 nessee; Gen. D. L. Adair and J. H. Nesbit, of 

 Kentucky; Mr. Atkins and his wife; and Mr, 

 Scofield, Mr. Barber and myself lent the 

 movement our support in Indiana. There 

 were some others in Indiana who favored it, 

 and Seth Hoagland and R. Bickford, of Penn- 

 sylvania, also supported it. R. C. Ous, ol 

 Wisconsin, attended the convention. He wis 

 the owner of much of the territory covered by 

 Mr Langstroth's patent. He came to ex- 

 amine the different hives there for the pur- 

 pose of finding out if any were infringements 

 on the Langstroth invention, and nearly or 

 quite all were, although but one or two of 

 the exhibitors in attendance would admit it. 



A delegate to this convention from Utah, 

 whose name I have also forgotten, purchased 

 100 colonies of Italian bees from Mr. Grimm 

 while at the convention, paying him -¥1500 for 

 them. This was probably the largest deal in 

 bees that had ever occurred in this country 

 up to that time. 



At this convention A. F. Moon was elected 

 president, and I think there was also a secre- 

 tary elected— M. M. Baldridge. of Illinois. 

 The proceedings of this convention were simi- 

 lar to those of bee-keepers' conventions nowa- 

 days, except that verv little was said about 

 hives, further than to agree that to success- 

 fully manage bees the combs must be mov- 

 able. There was, however, quite a feeling of 

 anxiety on the part of most of the owners of 

 the different patterns of movable comb hives, 

 it being generally believed that the presence 

 of Mr. Otis meant unfriendliness toward them, 

 which might end in prosecution for infringe- 

 ment on the Langstroth patent, which Mr. 



Otis then controlled in most, if not all, of the 

 States and Territories. 



On motion of R. C. Otis, Rev. L. L. Lang- 

 stroth was made an honorary member of the 

 Association. 



During the afternoon of the first day's pro- 

 ceedings a telegram came to the convention 

 from H. A. King, of New York, which read 

 as follows, or nearly so: 



" Officers and Members of the Bee-Keepers' 

 Convention at Indianapolis, Ind. : — You are 

 earnestly requested to meet with your bee- 

 keeping brethren at Cincinnati, Ohio," — giv- 

 ing the date, which, I think, was in February 

 following. The convention then in session 

 was called the " North American Bee-Associa- 

 tion." 



Mr. King was the maker of the " Ameri- 

 can " hive, and while he was selling a straight- 

 out infringement on the Langstroth patent, 

 he had not admitted it up to that time, and 

 was selling more hives than any other one 

 dealer in the country. He was a most per- 

 sistent advertiser, and sold a bee-book which 

 was quite a help to the beginners in bee- 

 keeping. 



After some discussion it was decided to 

 accept the invitation to attend the convention 

 at Cincinnati. 



Mr. King's reason tor not attending the 

 convention at Indianapolis came out in the 

 following statement, which he made through 

 the press : 



" The convention has been called to meet at 

 Cincinnati because it is centrally located, tree 

 from local influences, and near the home of 

 Mr. Langstroth, whom we want present." 



Most of the bee-keepers at the Indianapolis 

 convention were friends of Mr. Langstroth 

 and his invention. Mr. King knew this, and 

 also knew that most of those that were not 

 were friends to the " Buckeye " hive, of 

 which Mr. N. C. Mitchell was the inventor. 



When the time for the election of officers 

 for the ensuing year was announced, Mr. Otis 

 moved that in view of what Mr. Langstroth 

 had done in promoting the interests of bee- 

 keeping, not only in this but in other coun- 

 tries, he be crowned with the honor of being 

 the President of the North American Bee- 

 Keepers' Association for the ensuing year. 

 The motion was warmly seconded, and Pres. 

 Moon was authorized to east the unanimous 

 ballot of the Association for him. 



Mr. Langstroth was present at the Cincin- 

 nati convention, also H. A. King, A. I. Root, 

 Mrs. Ellen S. Tupper, and nearly all who had 

 attended the Indianapolis convention. A 

 motion was made by Mr. King on the second 

 day of the convention that the bee-keepers 

 present be requested to donate a liberal sum 

 of money to Mr. Langstroth. I opposed the 

 motion on the ground that it would be humili- 

 ating to the man who had done so much for 

 the interests of bee-keeping, and that every 

 one who was deriving benefit from his inven- 

 tion had not paid for the right to use it, as I 

 had done, or Mr. Langstroth would not stand 

 in need of donations from any source. I also 

 stated that I had not to exceed a thousand 

 dollars with me, and might run short of funds 

 in case I gave Mr. Langstroth such a sum as 

 all present ought to give if the benefit was to 

 amount to much. Rev. F. W. Clarke, of 

 Canada, supported my statement, saying that 

 he had heard something about Mr. Langstroth, 

 and that among other things he had learned 

 that a number of persons had fared sumptu- 

 ously as a result of having sold to a great ex- 

 tent hives that embraced the Langstroth in- 

 vention, and suggested that they be requested 

 to disgorge and divide profits with Mr. Lang- 

 stroth, which would probably relieve his 

 wants. This about killed the donation move, 

 and Mr. A. I. Root afterward wrote that at 

 the time he censured me for having blocked 

 this move, but that after more mature thought 

 he concluded that I was not far wrong. 



After a two days' session devoted princi- 

 pally to the usual subjects, this convention — 

 called the American Bee-Keepers' Association 

 — adjourned to meet one year later at Cleve- 

 land, Ohio, it being agreed by the bee-keepers 

 that they would meet at the above-named 

 city at the same time and place, disband as 

 separate organizations, and organize as one 

 body. There was no cause or feeling of any 

 sort to prevent such a union, as the masses of 

 bee-keepers had no bone of contention. The 

 feeling that existed between King, Mitchell, 

 and other patent-hive men was left for them 

 to adjust either in the courts or among them- 

 selves. Mr. Quinby, the author of " Mysteries 

 of Bee-Keeping Explained," was present, and 

 was made temporary chairman. The late 

 Capt. Hetherington, of New York, and Dr. J. 

 P. Kirtland, of Cleveland, were at this con- 

 vention, and also Prof. A. J. Cook, then of 

 Lansing, Mich., but now of California. Dr. 

 Kirtland was one of the first men of talent 

 and rare scientific acquirements to make note 

 of Mr. Langstroth's invention, and call public 

 attention to its great worth. 



I made a motion for the election of a treas- 

 urer, which was seconded by Prof. Cook, Rev. 

 F. W. Clarke, and others. It was antagonized 

 by Mr. King, on the ground that it was likely 

 to result in loss to the members, and that at 

 best it would involve a membership fee. This 

 last statement was a cunning dodge, and was 

 largely shared in by the bee-keepers present, 

 so that the motion was lost. I then moved 

 that a record of the proceedings of that con. 

 vention be kept, and that they be published. 

 This motion was carried without opposition- 

 then questioned the convention as to where 

 the money was to come from to defray the 

 expense of publishing the proceedings. At 

 this stage the motion to create a treasury 

 department was about to be renewed, when 

 King again came to the front and stated that 

 he would publish the proceedings free of 

 charge. He published a periodical, the name 

 of which I do not remember, and on the 

 strength of this offer received a number of 

 subscriptions. One year later this new or- 

 ganization (now called the National Bee- 

 Keepers' Association, if memory serves me 

 correctly) met at Indianapolis. This was 

 during the winter of 1872-73. I never at- 

 tended another meeting of this body until the 

 fall of 1904, at St. Louis, as I moved to Rice 

 Co., Kans., in 1873, and kept no bees from 

 1873 to 1903. 



Mr. Langstroth did not participate very ex- 

 tensively in the discussion of subjects brought 

 before the convention. He was depressed in 

 spirit to quite an extent, owing to the recent 

 death of his son, James Langstroth. Besides, 

 he could not have been very favorably im- 

 pressed with the motion that was made to 

 collect money from the liee-keepers present 

 for his benefit — that is. it he knew about it. 



