308 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



should call for a postal card vote, and 

 "the two men receiving- the greatest 

 number of votes for each respective 

 office are to be candidates for said 

 office; the names of the nominees and 

 the offices for which they are nominated 

 to be published in the bee journals." 

 What I object to is the publishing of 

 the names of more than two of the 

 candidates, and of indicating which 

 man has received the greatest number 

 of votes. Almost the sole object of this 

 informal ballot is that we may, if we 

 so desire, occasionally elect a new 

 man to office. We wish to place before 

 the members two candidates with equal 

 chances for election, or as nearlj' equal 

 as it is possible for us to make them. 

 The man already in office has an ad- 

 vantage, but by dividing up the opposi- 

 tion vote among half a dozen others 

 he is almost sure of election. An- 

 other thing: Don't tell who has the 

 greatest number of votes. Say that 

 John Doe and Richard Doe have re- 

 ceived the greatest number of votes. If 

 you say that John Doe had the great- 

 est number, and Richard Doe the next 

 greatest number, that practically elects 

 John Doe, and that is the very thing 

 that we wish to avoid. As I have 

 already said, we wish to bring two 

 candidates before the voters with as 

 nearly equal chance of election as it is 

 possible. If we give the names of half 

 a dozen candidates, and tell which one 

 received the greatest number of votes, 

 we have practically destroyed the value 

 of the informal ballot, and might just 

 as well hold our elections without any 

 nominations. As it is, the very object 

 that the Directors had in view is de- 

 feated by the manner in which the 

 results of the ballot are published. 



The Use of a Nom de Plume. 

 As a rule I do not approve of the use 

 of ^ nom de plume. There are cases 

 when modesty might be an excuse; 

 where a man, or more likely a woman, 

 might be willing to write but did not 



care for the resulting publicity. But 

 when a man enters into a critical 

 argument, and proceeds to "roast" 

 some apponent, he ought to come out 

 fair and square with his own signature. 

 To strike a man in the dark, and then 

 dodge behind a nom de plume, marks a 

 man as •A.coivard. 



»^»^v»^»i»^» 



Have More Charity. 

 I wish our great family of bee-keep- 

 ers to have more charit}' than they do 

 for one another. Perhaps the majority 

 do think well of their fellows, but there 

 are a few who are too much given to 

 fault-tinding, to seeing a man's faults 

 and failings instead of his good quali- 

 ties. I don't say that men or their 

 actions ought never to be criticised or 

 condemned, but so many times are men 

 fairly abused iov something for which 

 they are not to blame. I sometimes get 

 letters accusing me very sharply of 

 something for which I am not in the 

 least to blame. If j'ou think that a 

 man has made a mistake, or has done 

 wrong, it is not always best to ignore 

 it, or keep still about it, but before 

 condemning a man, ask in a kind and 

 courteous way for an explanation. 

 Don't be So ready to impugn a man's 

 motives until 3'ou know all of the cir- 

 cumstances. 



»»»»ii»^»«"*^ 



A Standard for Honey. 



In 1904 the Secretary of Agriculture 

 proclaimed the following standard for 

 honey : 



Honej'^ is nectar and saccharine 

 exudations of the plant, gathered, 

 modified, and stored in the comb by 

 the honey bee. It is laevo-rotator3-, 

 contains not more than 25 per cent, of 

 water, not more than 25 hundredths 

 (0.25) per cent, of ash, and not more 

 than 8 per cent of sucrose. 



So much complaint has been made 

 that this standard excluded honey 

 dew, and that it was often impossible 

 to secure honey entirely free from 

 honey dew, that the following minute 

 has been added: 



