166 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[Jan., 



rejoiced to learn that this useful body had selected 

 Kiel as the place for the annual meeting in 1871, and 

 were well aware that the selection had been made with 

 the express desi^ju of promoting bee-culture in that 

 quarter, where, though bees were kept, improved 

 modes of management were scarcely introduced. 



Then followed discussion of the various topics an- 

 nounced by the Executive Committee, consisting of 

 the Presidenii and the assistants— the chief of which 

 were Living Bees, Bee Hives, Implements of Bee-cul- 

 ture, Honey, (fee. — the debate, in each case, being 

 opened by the person propounding the topic, if he 

 happened to be in attendance. 



Salzburg, in Bavaria, was chosen as the place of 

 meeting in 1873, and Count Lamberg was appointed 

 President of that meeting, and Professor Dr. Kouigs- 

 berger, First Assistant. The city of Halle was named 

 as a desirable place for the meeting of 1873. 



The proceedings and debates have not yet been pub- 

 lished, but will appear in the December numbers of 

 the Bienenzeitung. 



Beekeepers' Convention. 



In conformity with the previous understanding the 

 beekeepers convened at Cleveland, Ohio, on the Gth 

 instant, united in one body under the name of the 

 North American Beekeepers' Society, adopted a con- 

 stitution, and elected the following officers : 



President. — M. Quinby, St. Jobnsville, New York. 



Vice Presidents. — A. Benedict, Bennington, Ohio ; 

 J. E. Hetherington, Cherry Valley, New York ; E. J. 

 Peck, Linden, New Jersey ; Seth Hoaglaud, Mercer, 

 Pennsylvania; D. L. Adair, Hawesville, Kentucky; 

 Dr. T. B. Hamlin, Edgefield Junction, Tennessee ; 

 Dr. G. Bohrer, Alexandria, Indiana ; E. Rood, Wayne, 

 Michigan ; M. M. Baldridge, St. Cliarles, Illinois'; R. 

 C. Otis, Kenosha, Wisconsin ; J. W. Ilosmer, Janes- 

 ville, Minnesota ; Mrs. E. S. Tupper, Brighton, Iowa ; 

 A. S. Stillman, Louisiana, Missouri ; Dr. L. J. Dal- 

 las, Topeka, Kansas ; W. D. Roberts, Peru City, 

 Utah ; Rev. W. F. Clarke, Guelph, Canada. 



Secretary. — H. A. King, New York. 



Pecording Secretary. — A. J. Cook, Lansing, Michi- 

 gan. 



Corresponding Secretary. — A. I. Root, Medina, 

 Ohio. 



Treasurer. — N. C. Mitchell, Indianapolis, Indiana. 



When we receive them, we shall select from the 

 proceedings of the society, such items as may appear 

 to be of interest to our readers. 



We are by no means partial to the plan adopted, of 

 organizing a national society, as we do not believe 

 that it will best conduce to the advancement of the 

 object which should be chiefly aimed at — the promo- 

 tion of bee-culture in the United States, or in North 

 America. The meetings of bodies thus organized, will 

 usually have a slim attendance, exert a very restricted 

 influence, and ultimately fall under the control of a 



clique. We like the German plan much better, and 

 the experience of many years shows it tobe aduiirably 

 adapted to rouse interest and spread information, both 

 theoretical and practical, over a wide extent of coun- 

 try. Attempts may, even there, be made to run the 

 meetings in the interest of designing parties, but they 

 are quickly detected, exposed, and thwarted, by those 

 who have no " axes to grind." 



Mr. H. A. King, in desperation, has attempted to 

 show that Mr. Langstroth did not invent the kind of 

 movable comb frame which he has patented, and 

 which has been so eminently successful in making 

 bee-culture a pleasant and profitable pursuit. He 

 hopes to effect this by presenting a list of parties who, 

 it is claimed, also thought of this thing, tried to pro- 

 duce it, and failed. This is a very novel mode of 

 ratiocination, indeed, and ought to entitle Mr. K. to 

 a foi;rth or fifth patent, quite as good and valid as any 

 he now has, or ever pretended to have. Invention, 

 within the meaning of the patent law, we have alwaj's 

 understood, was the " conception of some new and 

 useful thing, and the embodiment of that conception 

 in a 2»'acticable form ;" and " he who fiist perfects a 

 device and makes it capable of usefid operation, is en- 

 tiled to a patent, and is the real inventor, though 

 others may have had analagous ideas, and experi- 

 mented to bring them into use." 



Now, how stands the case with these alleged prior 

 American inventors? Admitting the accounts given 

 by them to "be true, it is notorious that their frames, 

 and all their attempts to make and use them, were 

 decided failures — so regarded even by themselves. Tljey 

 and their miscarriages quickly sank into oblivion, 

 being dead and buried, till Mr. King, like a body- 

 snatcher, comes and resurrects them from their 

 graves, to string up their bones in terrorem in the 

 limbo of some museum of misbegotten and abortive 

 conceptions. Certainly their contrivances, whatever 

 they were, were not jjracticable movable frames, like 

 those of Mr. Langstroth, or there could be no con- 

 troversy about them now. Nobody (except it be some 

 sanctimonious skin-dresser) ever quarrels about the 

 carcass of a skunk, but all rejoice when it is decently 

 interred, and are glad to let it rest undisturbed. 

 There never was a living principle in any of their 

 inventions, or they would not have died and "made 

 no sign." There was in their frames (admitting 

 they ever made any) some inlierent fatal defect or 

 vice, involving failure as a necessity ; for, despite of 

 all their skill and efforts, the fact is patent and unde- 

 niable, that each and all, in order due, did fail. This 

 uniform and universal disappointment, and the con- 

 sequent abandonment of experiment after exi)eriment, 

 are the demonstrative and conclusive proofs of failure. 

 Success is here the only infallible evidence of success, 

 and it utterly refuses to testify in behalf of any for 

 whom claims are now set up ; while it proclaims, 

 trumpet-tongued, the practical efficiency and high 



