^HE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



371 



pects her to be able to endow her royal 

 oflfspring- with the qualities and 

 characteristics of her ancestors; and, 

 if she does this, he need not mourn if 

 she lives only long- enough to allow 

 him to secure a goodly number of her 

 daug-hters. If he buys queens in large 

 quantities to re-queen an apiary, he 

 has a right to feel that he has been 

 cheated if the queens live only a few 

 short months. The practical honey 

 producer has not this problem to solve. 

 Simply let the bees rear their own 

 queens, and they will be as good as 

 any. That queens can be reared arti- 

 ficially, equal to any, there is nodoubt. 

 Most certainly they can. How it can 

 be done has been repeatedly published. 

 As I have said in the beg^inning, we 

 have a lot of sayings something like 

 the following-: "Good queens are 

 the foundation of good bee-keeping-." 

 "Bee-keeping all centers about the 

 queen." "As the queen lays all the 

 eg-gs, of course, success depends upon 

 her." It is to combat such ideas as 

 these I have written. The queen is of 

 no more importance than the hive, the 

 combs, or the location. By importance 

 I mean, in this case, that which can 

 by some decision, or management of 

 the bee-keeper, be made to contribute 

 to his success. 



SHALL PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES BE 

 DISCUSSED IN ADVANCE OF NOM- 

 INATIONS ? 



"When I saw that my term of office as 

 Director expired this year, and learned 

 by correspondence that Mr. Brodbeck 

 did not wish for re-election, it seemed 

 to me that I could do better work for 

 the Association as Secretary than I 

 could as Director, accordingly I sent 

 out a circular asking members to vote 

 for me as Secretary. This circular 

 was not sent to the whole membership, 

 as it would be quite expensive, and it 

 was thought the same results would be 



secured if sent to only part of them. 

 Not sending it to all of them was a mis- 

 take. Perhaps sending it at all was a 

 mistake. At St. Louis there met men 

 who had received the circular, and 

 those who had not. They compared 

 notes, and scented a "scheme. " From 

 this there developed some ill-feeling 

 and dissension. Feeling that we had 

 had a great sufficiency of this of late, 

 I at once withdrew my candidacy. 



Since then hints and reports have 

 come to me from vairious sources to the 

 effect that some of the men who opposed 

 my candidacy so vehemently, have since 

 been working "under cover" for the 

 election of another man. Whether or 

 not these reports are true, there ought 

 to be no occasion for such work. 

 There ought to be some honorable, 

 public method of discussing candidates 

 in advance of nomination. If some 

 man, or set of men, have some man 

 whom they wish to present as a pros- 

 pective candidate, there ought to be 

 some public method whereby it can be 

 done. If some one else has a candi- 

 date, let him be brought forward. 

 And so on to the end of the list. I 

 think all of this might be done in the 

 bee journals. In the past the candi- 

 dacy of certain men has been urged in 

 the bee journals, but nothing of the 

 kind has been done this year, and I 

 suppose the reason is that it was 

 thought that nominations in advance of 

 election would answer every purpose, 

 but they do not. In these nominating 

 ballots the members are as much at a 

 loss as to whom to vote for, as they 

 were formerly as to whom to vote for 

 at the regular election. Our nomina- 

 tions in advance of election enable us 

 to c sncentrate our votes upon two men 

 instead of scattering them among a 

 hundred or so. Before, it was simply 

 impossible to elect any man except 

 the man already in office; now it will 

 be possible to elect some other man if 

 we/>rif/6'r him, which is a decided ad- 

 vantage. Dr. Miller, as I understand 



