1871.] 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



9 



movable frame hive, in the sense of term as used hy 

 modern bee-lieepers ; nor was it intended to be so by 

 its inventor. It is simply an obsurvitig hive, long 

 since superseded in use as such. No apiarian would 

 for one moment tliink of usiua; it in practical bee cul- 

 ture, as a movable comb hive, nor was it ever called so 

 till Mr. Lansstroth himself happened to dub it so. 

 The Dcbeauvois hive, too, was an impractical struc- 

 ture that never was or could be introduced into use. 

 So utterly was it a failure, that Mr. Ilamet, the 

 author of several treatises on bee culture, and editor 

 of the " Apiculteur," has become so strongly preju- 

 diced against movable frames, as to denounce them 

 as involving an impracticable idea— believing, appa- 

 rently, that as the French inventors have failed in 

 their efforts in this line, no others could ever succeed. 



— £d. 



[For the American Bee Journal.] 



The Hive Question Again. 



I dislike to ask permission to occupy the 

 columns of the Journal again with this subject ; 

 but as Mr. J. H. Thomas has asked me a num- 

 ber of questions, either vvith'a real desire to have 

 me answer them, or to try to puzzle me and 

 make my statements appear confused, and has 

 made a garbled quotation of my language to 

 make it seem contradictory, I feel it due to my- 

 self to reply, and will try to be brief. 



Mr. T. makes a very evasive rejily to my state- 

 ment about the combs breaking down, being 

 careful not to say whether his hives were in the 

 sun or not. To prove that they will not break 

 down in his hive, he says they do not bi'eak 

 down in the ordinary box hives, some of which 

 contain larger comljs than his. Now, ninety- 

 nine out of a hupdred of all the box hives I ever 

 saw had cross-sticks in them, to support the 

 combs and prevent them from breaking down ; 

 and I cannot but believe that such has been the 

 ca.se with those in his country. His modest 

 allusion to superior knowledge, I let pass for 

 what it is worth . 



Referring to my experience in wintering, he 

 asks : ' ' Were both the tall hives and the shallow 

 ones ventilated exactly alike?" No. The ven- 

 tilation with the Thomas hive, with a hole in the 

 bottom board three inches square, covered with 

 wire cloth, is a peculiar feature of that hive (or 

 was, as it has been changed lately), recom- 

 mended, I suppose, for its " scientific principle." 

 The shallow hives did not have this, and their 

 entrances were left somewhat larger than in the 

 Thomas hive. The top ventilation and covering- 

 were as near alike as I could make tliem. 



"There was a large number of dead bees in 

 some of the tall hives. Was this carelessness, 

 too?" No, not that I am aware of, or I would 

 have so stated, for I had no object in view ex- 

 cept to state the facts. 



"Was it a fact that they contained far more 

 old bees than the other hives !" It was not. 



"Why should tall hives mould more than 

 shallow ones?" This question should be in this 

 form : Why did the Tltomas limes mould, «fec. ? 

 and even then I must confess that it puzzled me. 

 At one time I thought that that hole in the bot- 



tom board had something to do with it ; but I 

 hardly think that is satisfactory. 



"How is it that Mr. S. says : *I have no hives 

 patented or unpatented,' while the next para- 

 graph connnences with : ' I have made a hive, ' 

 &c. ?" Mr. Thomas has here deliberately quoted 

 only a part of a sentence, to make me appear in- 

 consistent. That kind of garbling won't win. 

 I said plainly, "I have no hives, patented or un- 

 patented, to sell.'' ^ Is thei-e anything inconsistent 

 with that, and my making a hive for my own 

 use, and recommending it to others? I have 

 neither time nor inclination to go into the hive 

 n^ianufacturing business. 



"How is it that Mr. S. has made a tall hive, 

 — frames 14 inches deep," &c. I did not say 

 my frames were fourteen inches deep ; the comb 

 in my frames is just twelve inches deej}, though 

 I call it a tall hive. The hive I made was gotten 

 up in the winter, before I was aware of the re- 

 sult of the wintering. My experiment only 

 showed that the bees wintered better in the 

 shallow hive than in the Thomas hive. But it 

 does not. follow from this that a tall hive, made 

 upon a different princij^le, is not better for win- 

 tering than a shallow one. I admitted the cor- 

 rectness of the theory in regard to the advan- 

 tages of wintering in a tall hive, and made one 

 moderately tall to secure those advantages, and 

 for the purpose of making it better adapted to . 

 placing surplus boxes at the sides, — as I still 

 wished to retain the advantages claimed for this 

 last feature, I have no cause yet to change it. 

 But with Mr. Langstroth's plan 1 am now nearly 

 satisfied that the shallow ones will winter just as 

 well as the tall ones. Of course I do not con- 

 sider one experiment conclusive. 



I cannot accept Mr. Thomas' proposition to 

 try and beat what his hive has done in St. Catha- 

 rine's, or anywhere else. No test of hives can 

 be made except upon the same grounds. When 

 one kind of hives give three times as much sur- 

 l)lus as another kind, in the same apiary, under 

 the same circumstances as near as possible, for 

 a successive number of seasons, I can very soon 

 decide which is the best for that apiary. If Mr. 

 T. can afford to stick to the tall hive and top 

 box and remain behind the times, while H. A. 

 King & Co., who have so long been the advocates 

 of tile same, have, in their latest issues, short- 

 ened their frames, put on a second -story of 

 frames, and made arrangements for side surplus 

 boxes ; and such extensive manufacturing es- 

 tablishments as the "National Beehive Com- 

 pany," at St. Chai-les, Ills., have to give their 

 attention almost exclusively to making two- 

 story hives, to supply the demands of progress 

 in this direction (see Bee Journal, vol. VI., page 

 160),— to say nothing of the many individuals 

 who are doing the same, — I am sure I have no 

 right to complain. 



I have no desire to make "a thrust at the 

 Thomas hive without good grounds ;" nor do I 

 wish to injure it or its maker in any way. In 

 my dealings and correspondence with Mr. T., I 

 have found him prompt and obliging. But I 

 hold that in the investigation of this subject, 

 whatever experience we may have that we be- 

 lieve will tend to its development and advance- 



