822 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



Nov. 30, 1905 



what he was instructed to do, and then has 

 done still more, and my contention is that 

 this additivnal " doing" nullifies the object 

 of the nominations. 



I was one of the Directors at the time when 

 these rules regarding nominations were passed, 

 and I can truthfully say that there was no 

 idea or intention of so arranging things as to 

 " keep them in the dark." Personally, I 

 would have no objection to the publication 

 of all of the names that received any votes, 

 also the giving of the number of votes that 

 each man received, and 1 think that all of the 

 Directors are like-minded — probably the same 

 might be said of all of the members. But here 

 is the point — the one that the Directors had 

 in mind when those rules were framed, viz. ; 

 that there might come a time when some un- 

 desirable man would be elected to some im- 

 portant ofBce. This man might think, him- 

 self, that he was doing his work well, but it 

 would be apparent to every one else that he 

 was not. We could not go to him and tell 

 him that he was not a fit man for the office; 

 that would be too cruel. The proper thing 

 to do would be to elect some other man in his 

 place; but, without nominations how could 

 it be done? The opposition votes would be 

 scattered among a dozen or more candidates. 

 It was for this reason, and this only, that the 

 number of candidates was limited to two. 

 The man in office is almost sure to be one of 

 these candidates, and, if there is only one 

 opposing candidate who will receive all votes 

 not cast for the man already in office, there 

 will then be some hope of some time electing 

 a new man to office. 



I agree most fully with Bro. York, that 

 when the members of an association are gath- 

 ered together in convention, and an informal 

 ballot is taken, that it is customary to an- 

 nounce all of the names of those who have re- 

 ceived votes, also to state the number of votes 

 that each man has received; but it is also 

 true, just as my Chicago brother says, that 

 the vote tor officers in the National Bee-Keep- 

 ers' Association is somewhat different from 

 the election of officers at a convention. At a 

 convention there is an opportunity to discuss 

 candidates between sessions; besides, when 

 officers are elected at a convention held first 

 in one portion of the country and then 

 another, it is almost universally the custom to 

 elect new officers at each convention, if we 

 are going to elect a new man — it that is prac- 

 tically a foregone conclusion — then I see no 

 objection to announcing the names of all who 

 have received votes, and also giving the num- 

 ber of votes that each receives. In fact, if 

 the officers were to be elected by a plurality 

 vote, as is the case in our National Associa- 

 tion, then there is no earthly use of an in- 

 formal ballot. The way that things have 

 been running in the National in the past it 

 has been almost impossible to elect a new offi- 

 cer when the voting was done by mail. 



I agree with my brother, that the old officer 

 may be the best, but we wish to be able to 

 elect a new one if we wish to do so, and it was 

 to secure that end that the rules for nomina- 

 tions were made as they were. If they don't 

 accomplish their object — if they have objec- 

 tions that can be remedied — if there is some 

 better way — I, for one, shall be only too glad 

 to see them changed. 



As ever yours, 



Nov. 10, 190.5. W. Z. Hutchinson. 



The foregoing raises the question: Is it 

 certain that a new man's chances would 



always be lesseneil by the addition of a sec- 

 ond new candidate, and equally certain that 

 the old incumbent's chances for remaining in 

 office would thereby be lessened? Suppose 

 Smith to be the old man, and Jones the new. 

 Smith gets 55 percent of the votes, Jones 45 

 percent, and so Smith continues in office. 

 Now suppose that instead of having only the 

 twooandidatesthere were three. Smith, Jones, 

 and another man. Brown. Is it unreasonable 

 to suppose that whatever votes Brown gets 

 will cut in on the Smith vote much more than 

 on the Jones vote? So, with the three candi- 

 dates in the field it would be nothing impossi- 

 ble that out of every 100 votes Smith should 

 get 35, Jones 40, and Brown 25. If, therefore, 

 the " only " object of the informal ballot be 

 to get rid of one already in office — and it may 

 be said by way of parenthesis that the object 

 at \e&st ought to be more than this — it seems 

 at least possible that in some cases it might 

 be accomplished more easily with two new 

 names than with only one. 



The closing sentence of Mr.Hutchinson's let- 

 ter is in the right spirit, and worth considering. 

 There need be no dilliculty, probably, in mak- 

 ing a change of plan if anyone will suggest 

 what is that better plan. And in this connec- 

 tion it may be well to mention one fault so 

 glaring that some means should be found for 

 its remedy. Mr. Hutchinson, speaking of a 

 man in office whom it is not desirable to con- 

 tinue in that office, says: 



" We would not go to him and tell him that 

 he was not a fit man for the office; that would 

 be too cruel." 



In just about that cruel position is every 

 member put who in the formal ballot votes 

 for a new man for Secretary. For the ballots 

 are sent to the Secretary to be counted, and it 

 is putting a man in a rather cruel place to say 

 to him: " You must vote for the old Secre- 

 tary, or else you must walk up to his face and 

 say, ' I want a new man to take your place.' " 



It is an easier thing to find fault than to 

 suggest the remedy, but remedies are not gen- 

 erally sought till faults are known, and it is 

 in order for any one to act on either line. 



/T 



Carloads or Cartloads of Honey 



A little time ago mention was made of the 

 purchase of 70 carloads of honey by the Na- 

 tional Biscuit Co. Our genial Atterthinker 

 was taken to task for making it larger than it 

 was. Now a correspondent of the British Bee 

 Journal turns the other end of the spy-glass 

 upon it, and reports " seventy cartloads!" At 

 least, that is what appears under the name of 

 D. M. Macdonald, Ijut possibly he may have a 

 score to settle with the " printer's devil." 



One of the Best.— Mr. F. M. Scott, of 

 Dodge Co., Minn., when sending his renewal 

 subscription for two years, wrote : 



" The American Bee Journal is one of the 

 best and most able journals in America." 



We would like to have say 35,000 readers 

 just like Mr. Scott, in addition to our present 

 list of honey-folks. We would like to have all 

 who can do so, help us to find them. Wo 

 offer premiums — good pay— for the work of 

 getting and sending in new subscriptions for 

 the American Bee Journal. Why not ask 

 your neighbor bee-keepers to subscribe? 



To Foreign Subscribers. — We wish to 

 repeat a notice that we have given several 

 times before. It is this: None of our special 

 offers made in the American Bee Journal, or 

 anywhere else, apply to foreign subscribers. 

 So whenever we receive a foreign order with 

 remittance we always apply it all on sub- 

 scription to the American Bee Journal. If 

 our foreign readers would think about it a 

 little, they would quickly see that our special 

 offers would not apply to them, on account 

 of the extra postage to foreign countries. 

 Also, we do not export any queens except to 

 Canada and Cuba. 



Some (Sxpcrt 

 ©pinion 



=^ 



J 



How Best to tse Convention Time 



Ques. 31 — 1. W>iat proportiuH of the lime 

 of a h€e-)COHventio7i do you think .thoutd be taken 

 H/) loith a qtieMlon-box for the greatest ben^t to 

 the average bee-keeper attendingf 



2. What proportion for your own greatest 

 personal efijoynient? 



J. M. Hambaugh (Calif.)— 1. One-fourth. 



Jas. a. Stone (111.) — 1. The larger part of 

 it. 2. All. 



Morgan Bros. (8. Dak.)— land 2. At least 

 one-third. 



Rev. M. Mahin (Ind.) — 1 and 3. The more 

 the better. 



E. E. Hasty (Ohio) — Well, at a venture, 

 say about half for both 1 and 2. 



Adrian Getaz (Tenn.) — 1. About half . 2. 

 All. and the funniest the better. 



Wm, McEvot (Ont.) — Nearly all the time. 

 All the time would suit me much better than 

 anything else. 



O. O. POPPLETON (Fla.) — 1. As much as 

 possible aside from transacting all really 

 necessary business. 3. All. 



R. C. AiKiN (Colo.)— 1. Three-fourths. 2. 

 Are we so selfish? Can't enjoy helping and 

 seeing others enjoy themselves? 



G. M. DoOLiTTLE (N. T.) — Just in propor- 

 tion to the wants of the greatest number of 

 " average bee-keepers attending." 



S. T. Pettit (Ont.)— 1. May be about 20 

 percent. 2. Whatever suits the crowd. I 

 enjoy seeing any meeting happy in a proper 

 way. 



R. L. Tatlor (Mich.)— 1. Sufficient for the 

 answering and discussion of all the questions 

 that can be obtained. 2. Nearly all the avail- 

 able time. 



Eugene Secor (Iowa) — 1. All of it. 2. In 

 National conventions I think it is well to 

 have some leading authorities give papers on 

 important subjects. 



C. P. Dadant (111.)— Two-thirds of it. I 

 enjoy that part best, and learn more than 

 anything else, for we get the ideas of indi- 

 viduals from all directions, on the spot. 



Prof. A. J. Cook (Calif.) — 1. Froma large 

 experience in conducting Farmers' Institutes, 

 I should say from one-fourth to one-third. 2. 

 I should enjoy what gave the most benefit 

 to all. 



Mrs. J. M. Null (Uo.) — According to the 

 character of the questions. Convention time 

 is alwaya valuable, and in some cases to fur- 

 nish a text-book and a journal or two would 

 be economy. 



C. Davenport (Minn.) — A large part of it. 

 I have never been able to get away to attend 

 any large conventions, but I think the ques- 

 tion-box and short discussions on live topics 

 would interest me most. 



N. E. France (Wis.)— 1. Often it is the 

 best part of a convention. If papers are read 

 they should be short, and the discussion fol- 

 low. 2. Nearly all questions, and when all 

 are tree to ask practical questions. 



L.Stachelhausen (Tex.)— 1. This depends 

 upon circumstances. If some Dr. Millers are 

 in the crowd an all-question-box convention 

 will be a success; in other conventions I have 

 seen a levi hours' question-box an entire fail- 

 ure. 



J. A. Green (Colo.) — I have always gotten 

 the most enjoyment and good from the free 

 discussion and interchange of experience and 

 opinion that is most likely to result from the 

 question-box method. At the best conven- 



