372 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



him, objects to the small number of 

 candidates (two) and would have a 

 larg-er number — how large I don't 

 know. His objection to the small num- 

 ber is that "wire pulling-" might nom- 

 inate a man who was not the choice of 

 the majority. Suppose six men are to 

 be nominated as candidates, couldn't 

 "wire pulling" elect one of these just 

 as easily as it could nominate a man? 

 In our State Associations, where 

 about the same men meet year after 

 year, and become well acquainted,, it is 

 possible to elect the best man to office, 

 but in the National Association there 

 is a lack of this intimate acquaintance 

 with all of the membership, and there is 

 a tendency to elect the most popular or 

 best known man — perhaps a man who 

 writes a great many articles, or the 

 editor of a bee journal. These men 

 may make good officers, and they may 

 not. Because a man is well-known 

 and popular is no sign that he would 

 make a good officer. Perhaps this is 



not the time and place to discuss these 

 matters, but before another election, I 

 think they ought to be freely discussed. 

 It seems that I made a mistake in the 

 matter, and some decision ought to be 

 arrived at, that others may avoid simi- 

 lar mistakes. 



One more word in closing: There were 

 two or three attempts, at the St Louis 

 convention, to secure the endorsement 

 of some man for some office. They 

 failed, and I think it well that they 

 did. It would have established a prec- 

 edent, and in time it would have come 

 to mean an election, if endorsed by the 

 National convention, thus practically 

 putting the power of election in the 

 hands of the convention, to remedy 

 which the constitution was recently 

 changed. 



With patience and perseverance, we 

 will eventually straighten out this 

 snarl, just as we have straightened 

 some of the others in which the Nation- 

 al has become entangled. 



EXTRACTED DEPARTMENT. 



PROPOLIS. 



How it Differs in Different Localities. 



The following article from J. A. 

 Green, and printed in Gleanings, 

 shows how propolis differs: 



Judging from the references to it in 

 the bee-journals, one would suppose it 

 to be the common belief that propolis 

 is a substance of uniform source, com- 

 position, and character. As a matter 

 of fact, since propolis is gathered, and 

 not secreted like beeswax, it varies 

 widely in its qualities, almost as much 

 so as honey, according to the source 

 from which it is gathered. If we will 

 bear this fact in mind we shall avoid 

 much misunderstanding. 



As an illustration, the editor of the 

 Review announced some time ago that 

 lava soap would remove propolis from 

 the hands. One of the largest dealers 

 in bee-keepers' supplies, on the author- 



ity of this, advertised this soap in his 

 catalogue. Important, if true. But 

 lava soap unaided will not remove the 

 brand of propolis that my bees gather. 

 On the other hand, there are localities 

 less than fifteen miles away where the 

 propolis can be readily washed from 

 the hands with any good soap and hot 

 water. 



I usually get it oft" my hands by 

 soaping them well, then pouring on a 

 little aqua amonia, which, in connec- 

 tion with the soap, takes it off 

 readily. 



Another good way, not quite so 

 pleasant, but easier on the skin, is to 

 rub the hands with kerosene, then use 

 soap. You may not need these things, 

 or they may not work with you. If 

 they do not, remember that there is 

 mjre in "locality" than some people 

 are willing to admit. 



Whatever became of all the devices 

 for cleaning the propolis off from sec- 

 tions by machiner3' that occupied so 

 much space in the bee-journals several 



