1872.] 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



171 



copies of Munn, Debeauvoys, and such other works 

 iu my possession, but not in tlieir library, as had any 

 bearing on movable frames. In this reissue "an 

 improved construction and arrangement of the 

 frames of bee hives" is claimed, and the difference 

 between this improved construction and that of Ru- 

 ber, Munn, and Debeauvoys, is clearly shown. Mr. 

 King cannot be ignorant of laj true position ; for in 

 his attorney's answer to the suit of Mr. Otis against 

 him for iufringing upon tlie Langstroth patent, he no- 

 where assumes that I have claimed the absolute in- 

 vention of movable frames, but only attempts to show 

 that I am not the inventor of the style claimed in 

 the patent. 



This misstatement of the very point at issue, has 

 been dwelt upon at more length, because it so aptly 

 ministers to the prejudices of those who have 

 represented me as the mere inti'oducer of a foreign 

 invention, and yet "claiming everything," and 

 because it is evident from his " declaration," that 

 the Baron von Berlepsch really believes it, and 

 deemed it important " to prove in the case of Otis v. 

 King, that long before Mr. Langstroth applied for his 

 patent, there were used in Germany, and the rest of 

 Europe, hives with frames !" 



Mr. King's statement, that Huber was probably 

 the first inventor of the present style of movable 

 frames, is incorrect, VaQ present style oi frames being 

 that which inserts them in a case ; whereas, the Hu- 

 ber frames, when pitt together, formed a complete 

 hive without any case 



The reference to Cotton's frontispiece, is uncalled 

 for, as I have in my work acknowledged my indebt- 

 edness to Mr. Cotton for this beautiful engraving. 

 Those who have read my treatise, well know the care 

 which has been taken to give to Bevan and others, 

 full credit for what has been borrowed from them. 



Does Mr. King accomplish anything with intelli- 

 gent men, by insinuating the similarity between the 

 title of my work and that of Kichardson's except to 

 exhibit an intense eagerness for fault-finding ? 



That Taylor's Beekeeper's Manual. illustrates the 

 use of honey boards and supers, is true ; but Mr. 

 King has not found in it the shallow chamber claimed 

 in my patent. The readers of the Journal must bear 

 with me, when I place my denial side by side with 

 his affirmation, and remember that he has made this 

 necessary by atteuiptiug to Ibrcstall the verdict of 

 the proper tribunal. 



It is admitted that Major Munn patented his bar and 

 frame hive in France, in 1843 ; that it was very briefly 

 described with an engraving in the Loudon Garden- 

 er's Chronicle, for 1S43, and very minutely described 

 and illustrated by Mr. Munn in the first edition of 

 his work, in 1844. Mr. S. S. Fisher, late commis- 

 sioner of patents, and counsel -for Mr. Otis, after care- 

 ful examination, can find nothing in this hive which 

 invalidates a single claim in my patent. It is not 

 what Mr. Munn did, but what he described in some 

 printed publication issued prior to my application for 

 a patent, that will satisfy the requirements of the 

 patent laws. Of this, Mr. King must be well aware, 

 as his " answer" to the suit, amended since his return 

 from Europe, makes no reference to the Major's 

 oath. 



Munn's triangular frames of 1851, were intended to 

 remedy the defects of his oblong frames of 1844, the 

 failure of which is acknowledged in the second 

 edition of his work. Mr. Fisher can see nothing in 

 these triangular frames in the least damaging to the 

 claims of my patent, and I believe that the Huber 

 hive is more serviceable, both for practical and scien- 

 tific purposes, than either of Mr. Munn's. 



We come now to the inventions of M. Debeauvoys. 

 His frames of 1847, were made close fitting, both to 



the sides and top of the case containing them. Could 

 any of our practical beekeepers be persuaded to use 

 them, even if furnished free of cost ? His frames of 

 1S51, had their tops close fitting to each other, with 

 no plan of any kind for securing the surplus honey 

 outside of the frames of the main bee-chamber, and 

 even to secure the surplus there, he used a compli- 

 cated arraugeuient of double frames, connected by 

 rings and movable pins and staples. Although in 

 1853, he materially simplified the construction of his 

 hive, he does not in the last edition of his work, in 

 1863, even so much as suggest any arrangement for 

 supers or boxes. Mr. Hamet, the editor of the French 

 Bee Journal, says in his work on bee-culture (1859), 

 that the removal of frames from this Debeauvoys 

 hive, is often more difficult than from the Huber 

 hive, and that the hive has never been accepted by 

 practical men in the great beekeeping districts in 

 France. The construction of both his hives was 

 described in my reissue, and Mr. Fisher can see 

 nothing in them that invalidates my claims. 



Has Mr. King weighed carefully the language he 

 has used in extolling the inventions of Munn and 

 De Beauvoys ? " This hive" (Munn's) " really em- 

 braces all practical features of the movable frames of 

 to-day." "He" (Debeauvoys) "describes movable 

 frames containing all the features of the most perfect 

 frames now used in this country." After asserting 

 that these old foreign inventions had " all practical 

 fiatures," and "all the features of the most perfect 

 frames now used in this couiitry,'' ought he not to make 

 a bonfire of his patent papers, and then call on all 

 other patentees of movable frame hives to do the 

 same, that they may no longer be engaged in the 

 disreputable business of selling patents which have 

 no new features of any practical value? 



Passing over Mr. Ring's account of his long and 

 tedious search for books (all of which, and more 

 besides, Mr. Fisher would cheerfully, as a matter of 

 courtesy, have loaned to his counsel), we come to the 

 deposition of the Baron von Berlepsch. In the Bien- 

 euzeitung, for May, 1852, there is no illustration given 

 of this hive, and the " description " of it to which Mr. 

 King refers, is in such vague and general terms, that 

 for aught that appears, the Baron might only have 

 used Huber frames inserted in a case. Even if the 

 Berlepsch frames had been illustrated and fully 

 described, they could not have invalidated my patent, 

 which was applied for more than four months before 

 this article was published in Germany ! Mr. King, 

 in his "ameuded answer," makes no reference to the 

 Baron's hive, or to his "declaration;* and as this 

 answer, tiled after his return from Europe, as regards 

 foreign inventions is substantially the same with his 

 first answer, it may be presumed that after putting 

 himself into personal communication with the editors 

 of the European bee journals, and with the most 

 eminent apiarians abroad, he has found nothing to 

 allege against the validity of my patent, which had 

 not been previously known and weighed by Mr. 

 Fisher and myself. 



We come lastly to the claims of parties in this 

 country to a prior invention of the frames described 

 in my patent. The claims of Mr. Shaw were for the 

 first time brought to my notice by the amended 

 answer of Mr. King. From Mr. Shaw's deposition, 

 which has recently been taken, it appears that he 

 used a metal case with double metallic water-tight 



* There are some things in this document, which 

 deserve special notice, and I cannot but hope, as Mr. 

 King has given it to the public before offering it in 

 evidence in the suit, that Mr. Wagner will publish it 

 with suitable comments, either in this or the March 

 No. of his Journal. 



