justice to Muth, Novice, &e, as I was Chairman of 

 the judges; as Novice's was not there— only Nellis' 

 make of it.and that would hurt you. Right wrongs no 

 one. If you omit the words competing with the 

 Muth " die. it will need no comment. 



I am yours, &c, Thomas G. Newman. 



He replied as follows : 



Toledo, O.. Nov. 20, 1878. 

 Friend Newman :— I was not aware that my 

 extractor was the only one on exhibition for compe- 

 tition, as I saw the judges examining all the extract- 

 ors, as I supposed ; but such being the case you may 

 leave out the words " competing " &c, as mentioned 

 in your letter. Truly yours, B. O. Everett. 



The matter was we thought settled till we 

 received the following letter : 



Toledo, O., Dec. 16, 1878. 



Friend Newman :-- I have concluded to have 



the words " competing " &c, added to my advertise- 

 ment, as in my first letter The officers of the 



Association say that in the judgment of the judges, 

 my extractor was the best there— and that is still the 

 verdict of the the two judges (yourself of course 

 excepted, as I suppose, you being interested had no 

 voice) so I see no reason why I am not entitled to 

 the laurels fairly won. Yours, &c, B. O. Everett. 



In order to ascertain, whether we could 

 be mistaken, we wrote the judges and the 

 Secretary of the American Institute for the 

 facts, with the following results : 



New York, Dec. 81, 1878: Thomas G. Newman 

 ESQ., Dear Sir :— Your favor of the 28th inst., at hand. 

 In reply I beg leave to say that Mr. B. O, Everett 

 was the only party who entered Honey Extractors ; 

 although there was others in the exhibition, I think 

 belonging to Mr. King and others. The judges were 

 the following: Thomas G. Newman, Chairman ; J. W. 

 Porter and H. Alley. I enclose a certified copy of 

 the entry. Yours, &c, John W. Chambers, Sec. 



The following is the certified copy of the 

 original entry : 



" Groupe 3, at the 47th exhibition of the American 

 Institute, held in the city of New York, October and 

 November, 1878. 



" No. 1593 Honey Extractors. B. O. Everett, Toledo, 

 O." " This is a true copy of the original on file." 

 John W. Chambers, Sec, N. Y., Dec. 31, 1878. 



Charlotteville, Va.: Friend Newman :— ....As to 

 the award on Extractors, my recollection is clear ; 

 you said that as no others were exhibited in compe- 

 tition, we had to give the award to the Everett 



Mr. Everett has written to me complaining that you 

 objected to his advertisement on the grounds stated. 

 I answered as above, strongly advising him not to 

 insert the clause or try to, for it would lead to ill 

 feeling and that I thought such advertisements in 

 bad taste. ... J. W. Porter. 



Wenham, Mass., Jan. 7, 1879 : Friend Newman :— 



You are right in your opinion of it. I know that 



only the Everett extractor was entered; nevertheless 

 he did compete with all the others, else why were 

 they all there. I do not know why they were not 

 entered. Henry Alley. 



The latter are extracts from a long letter, 

 but convey the writer's idea. He thought 

 that Everett's extractor competed with all 

 on exhibition— no matter whether entered 

 or not. Any one can see, however, that such 

 is never the case. To be competitive at any 

 fair, everything must be entered and the 

 entrance fee paid. If not who would incur 

 that expense? 



With all this testimony (excepting Mr. 

 Allev's) before us (see date of letter), we 

 concluded we should be doing Mr. Everett 

 a favor as well as our readers justice in 

 omitting the words " competing with Muth, 

 Novice," &c, in the Journal for January. 

 We thought he had taken a rational view of 

 it; since we had not heard anything further 

 till we received the Convention report in 

 question, and the letters of inquiry. We 

 saw Mr. E. at the Michigan State Convention 



and talked with him. He appeared pleasant 

 to us, but we since learn that he was then 

 endeavoring to prejudice some of our friends 

 against us— while at the very same time 

 we were defending his character and doing 

 him all the good we could, as will be seen by 

 the following: At the Carson City Con- 

 vention, Mr. Robertson, of Pewamo, Mich., 

 publicly denounced Mr. Everett for unfair 

 dealing, and condemned his extractor.— 

 Prof. Cook, Mr. E. J. Hetherington or any 

 one present, will testify that we defended 

 his character before the Convention, assert- 

 ing that we felt sure Mr. E., would make 

 the matter satisfactory. We further told 

 Mr. Robertson that the new gear now used 

 by Mr. E., was good aud strong. 



As Mr. Robertson went with us to the 

 State Convention, we took pains to intro- 

 duce him to Mr. E., and stated before both 

 parties, how we had defended him, &c. In 

 consequence the matter we understand was 

 arranged satisfactorily. We little dreamed 

 that Mr. E., would, within a month, pay us 

 for this kindness in the way he has, before 

 the N. W. Ohio Convention, near his home 

 at Toledo. But—" ' Tis well !" 



At the Michigan Convention we were also 

 appointed a committee on apiarian sup- 

 plies with Mr. E. J. Hetherington and Mr. 

 Geo. E. Steele. Here, again, we did him 

 service while he was privately engaged in 

 trying to poison the minds of several mem- 

 bers of the Convention against us, saying 

 we were an interested party, and opposed to 

 him, as we since learned. He was " com- 

 plaining" about our being on the committee— 

 which we asked to be relieved'from, but was 

 refused. As to our position before the com- 

 mittee let the following from our colleagues 

 testify : 



East Saginaw, Dec, 27, 1878 : Friend Newman :— 

 In regard to the matter of the Everett extractor, we 

 decided merely mention it as on exhibition, as it was 

 fitted with the old gear. But at your suggestion, as 

 he had a sample of the new gear on exhibition, not 

 attached to the extractor, and on your recommenda- 

 tion as you had seen a machine tilled with it, we de- 

 cided to recommend it as worthy of special mention. 

 Yours truly, O. J. Hetherington.. 



Elk Rapids, Mich., Jan. 4, 1879 : Friend Newman: 

 —The Everett extractor was of the older pattern, 

 Mr. Everett having failed to get the newer style there 

 as he desired, but exhibited the new gearing separ- 

 ately. The Committee at first hesitated to recom- 

 mend on account of incompleteness of the sample 

 before them ; but were unanimous I think, in praise 

 of the machine when the new gearing should be 

 adopted, with some minor improvements suggested 

 by the inventor. If you had an interest in any other 

 extractor you had also the " angelic " faculty of not 

 " praising thyself " nor wares, before the Committee, 

 and I had no idea that you could have an interest in 

 any until I was so informed at the breaking up of the 

 Convention. Be that true or false, I cannot say, but 

 if you did (?) have a pet extractor, why on earth did 

 you not bring it along, so that the Committee might 

 have a chance to praise it, or so you might make a 

 minority report and praise it yourself V I leave it to 

 those who know, to answer. Geo. E. Steele. 



We have no interest in any apiarian sup- 

 ply on earth, and try to be fair and honest 

 in expressing our opinion on all that are 

 offered for sale, and sell any and all such, 

 only on their merits. 



We like Mr. Everett's extractor with the 

 new gearing very well, and so told the com- 

 mittee. For this is he our enemy ? 



Our object for omitting the sentence in 

 Everett's advertisement was not only to do 

 justice to Messrs. Muth, Novice, King, Nel- 

 lis, Coffinberry, &c, but also to save this 



