124 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



and vice versa. Still further, some- 

 thing- that might be deadlj^ to one 

 form of animal life would be harmless 

 to some other form. For instance, 

 some insect powders cause the death of 

 some insects by clog-g-ing up the spira- 

 cles through which they breathe, but 

 are harmless to animals that breathe 

 by means of lung-s. 



Mr. Johnson says there are only two 

 g-ases that are good germicides; that 

 from burning sulphur andfrom formal- 

 dehyde. The former is deadly to animal 

 life as well as to bacteria, but the 

 latter may be inhaled, along with air, 

 to a considerable extent, without in- 

 jury. At a medical college a dog was 

 confined for 24 hours in a room where 

 formaldehyde gas was turned in quite 

 strong, yet the dog was not injured, 

 except that his nose, eyes, mouth and 

 lungs were greatly irritated; but he 

 soon recovered so as to eat a he art j' 

 meal. 



Mr. Johnson says we might saturate 

 a piece of cotton with a 40 per cent, 

 solution of formaldehyde, and lay it 

 upon the bottom board of a hive con- 

 taining a colony of bees, covering the 

 cotton with wire cloth to keep the bees 

 from coming in contact with the sol- 

 ution, as it would burn them. The gas 

 would be set free and combine with 

 the air in all parts of the hive. He 

 says that with a 40 per cent, solution 

 the bees would suffer, and probably 

 desert their hive unless given abund- 

 ant air both above and below, hence he 

 would advise the use of a weaker sol- 

 tition, gradually increasing the strength 

 until the right point is determined. 



All this maj' seem like going on a 

 wild goose chase, but I sav' let those 

 who can, try these things. 



SHALL THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 



PUBLISH A STENOGRAPHIC REPORT 



OF ITS ANNUAL CONVENTION? 



If I am not mistaken, the National 

 Association of bee-keepers has never 



yet employed a stenographer to take a 

 verbatim report of the proceedings of 

 its annual convention. Still further, 

 I believe it has never yet published 

 any kind of a report of its proceedings, 

 except such a report as had first ap- 

 peared in the American Bee Journal, 

 and then was afterwards put into book 

 form by the publishers of the American 

 Bee Journal. Perhaps, in times past, 

 the National has not been able to do 

 more than this, but isn't it now able 

 to employ its own stenographer, and 

 publish its own report? 



The American Bee Journal has been 

 enterprising enough to employ a 

 stenographer, and to publish a report 

 of the proceedings, and in so doing it 

 has probably gained many subscribers. 

 Many have told me, and written me, 

 that one reason why they subscribed 

 for the American Bee Journal was be- 

 cause it gave the only stenographic re- 

 port of the National convention. The 

 National ought to "take advantage of 

 its advantages." If men pay $1.00 for 

 the American Bee Journal that they 

 may thereby read a report of the con- 

 vention proceedings, why should not 

 the National be able to hold out this 

 same inducement to men to become 

 members, viz., that by so doing they 

 would get a report of the proceedings 

 of the annual convention? Nothing 

 said here is intended to be derogatory 

 to the American Bee Journal. Instead, 

 that journal is deserving of praise for 

 its good business management and 

 enterprise, but, having said this, it is 

 strictl}' in order to ask why the Na- 

 tional should allow the American Bee 

 Journal, or any journal, to take ad- 

 vantage of advantages that belong to 

 itself? Publishing it in piecemeal, as 

 a journal from necessity must, it is 

 sometimes three months after the con- 

 vention is over before the report is all 

 printed. Then, after this, after per- 

 haps three-fourths of its members have 

 already read the report, to turn around 

 and pay out good money to have it put 



