1872.] 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



173 



Russian Propokovitsch, for he had frames in his hive 

 a Ions time previous to mj-self ; they were in fact very 

 imperfect, but still they were frames." ****** 

 " But the claims of Langrstroth to be the inventor of 

 the frames, are nothing new to me, for in the summer 

 of 1859, I received a visit from a most intelliirent 

 American beekeeper, PhineasMacMahon, from Phila- . 

 delphia, who expressed no little surprise when I 

 showed him about eighty full frame hives, and told 

 him that the frames had not been changed since 1851. 

 The American then declared that now he had proof 

 that Langstroth was not the inventor, only he wished 

 to know how he could have heard of it, as I had as 

 far as he knew, never published an illustration of the 

 same." 



I replied that I supposed .this had been done by 

 Paul Reinhard Backhaus, to whom I had sent some 

 hives to America iu 1851. Mr. King writes to me, 

 " Langstroth's principal claims are the air space 

 above the frames and the board above it with holes 

 for passage of bees into su]>ers (bell glasses or 

 boxes"). That is, Langstroth's principal claims are 

 based on the vacant space over the frames, and the 

 cover with the bung-hole for the passatre of bees into 

 the bell glass. I can hardly comprehend how Lang- 

 stroth can attach the slightest importance to such 

 things which exist as a matter of coiu'se, for the 

 merest beginner must comprehend that tliere must be 

 at least so much space between the frames and the top 

 that the bees can reach the bung-hole, and through 

 that, the super. This vacant space must be at least 

 one-fourth of an inch in height. * * * * The vacant 

 space in Langstroth's hive, as it is described in his 

 "Practical Treatise" of 1859, is, however, much too 

 high. This hive moreover is so bad that even the 

 most inexperienced beginner in Germany would con- 

 demn it. I myself do this most distinctly, and declare 

 this hive decidedly impracticable. The above shows 

 conclusively that I used hives with movable frames 

 and employed glass supers lomr before Langstroth's 

 patent. * * * J^angstroth does not seem to be 

 familiar with bee-literature, otherwise he would know 

 that beekeei^ers have had vessels of glass or other 

 material, built full of honey by means of the bung- 

 hole, for centuries past, a long time before the move- 

 able frame was invented." The Baron after describing 

 the hive sent to Mr. King, so that it may be properly 

 identified, concludes his declaration thus : " But this 

 sort of a hive has gone out of date a long time since 

 and in all Germany as well as in the rest of Europe, 

 those shapes have been introduced a long time since, 

 which I have described in my M'ork on bees, 2d edi- 

 tion. It has no longer any practical value in bee-cul- 

 ture, but as a specimen of that first invention it will 

 prove in 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. 

 Many witnesses can be brought who can swear to it 

 that I have raised bees in frame hives at Seehach Cas- 

 tle ever since 1843, and made the improvement of 

 these hives my special stndy." 



Having thus given the substance of the Baron's de- 

 claration, I shall before commenting upon it, give also 

 the substances of his communications to the Beinen- 

 zeitung prior to the publication in 1855, of the first 

 edition of his work on bees. 



THE BERLEPSCH FRAMES. 



In a communication published in the Supplement to 

 the Bienenzeitung, No. 9, May 1st, 1852, the Baron 

 says he sends to the Editor a sample of a hive invented 

 by him and called " Stehende-r Rahmmliifter''^ (up- 

 right frame ventilator) which he regards as "the most 

 perfect hive then known." It is said he, "partly a 

 glass hive, a perfect ventilator and perfect Dzierzon." 



In internal arrangement, he said "it is unequalled, 

 and the inner space may be enlarged or diminished 

 at pleasure, and every comb taken out." It is "less 

 squat and clumsy than the Dzierzon hive, has not the 

 cold but the warm arrangement of combs ; each comb 

 may be removed without' cutting ; and building them 

 fast to the sides or bottom by the bees, is rendered 

 absolutely impossible." Nevertheless he thought this 

 hive would never come into general use, or exert any 

 influence on bee-culture regarded as a branch of in- 

 dustry ; because with all its simplicity in the view of 

 an intelligent beekeeper, it is "too comi)licated and 

 too costly for the ordinary peasant." Finally he re- 

 quests the editor, if conceding the hive is what he 

 (Berlepsch) claims it to be, "to desa'ibe and Uhmtrate 

 it in the Bienenzeitung ; otherwise to consign it to his 

 Imnher garret." 



In a note to this article, the editor speaks of the 

 ^'■liahmeuViifter'^ as ingeniously devised, adopting and 

 combining what is valuable in previous inventions, 

 and presenting some advantageous peculiarities of its 

 own, and as being "well calculated to be used with 

 satisfaction by an expert, possessing the necessary 

 pecuniary means." At the same time, he concurs 

 with the Baron's opinion that the hive is "too com- 

 plicated and dear," and hence not likely to come into 

 use extensively, though it may be emploj-ed by ama- 

 teur beekeepers and investigators." No description 

 or illustration of it is given, however, and its peculiar 

 construction could only be guessed at. 



In the Extra Supplement to the Bienenzeitung, No. 

 21, Nov. 1st, 185'i, is contained the first subsequent 

 reference to the Rahmenliifter, by the Baron, or any 

 one else. It is a letter addressed to Dzierzon, censur- 

 ing him for having written and published a book im- 

 perfectly explaining his system, and inadequately 

 describing his hive. " I blame you for this," says he, 

 "that for four j-ears — from 1848 to 1851, inclusive — I 

 have had in use, under the name of Dzierzon, hives 

 entirely diflerent from yours, and basing my judgment 

 on those monsters, have spoken disparagingly of your 

 hires and your methods, to the numerous beekeepers 

 visiting me at Seebach, thus exposing mj-self to 

 deserved derision. ********* j -jfas con- 

 strained to let my carpenter work according to those 

 nearly unintelligible intimations. Very soon I had fifty 

 handsome single hives made (costing me more than 

 8300), and I began eagerly to Bzierzoyiise, but with 

 the poorest results. Already, in 1849, doubts arose 

 in my mind as to the correct construction of those 

 hives, because I could seldom get out a comb without 

 breaking it, and sometimes the whole internal struc- 

 ture would topple down, forcing me to conclude that 

 your whole device was based on a sandy foundation, 

 and the use of my so-called Dzierzons was abandoned, 

 and the remainder were managed on the swarming 

 system. 



But your fame was constantly spreading farther, 

 and being fully convinced of the correctness of your 

 theory, I travelled ineagnito to Brieg, in the fall of 

 1851, and thence afoot to Bankwitz, carrying a small 

 valise, finally wending my way to Carlsmarkt. There 

 I presented myself to you as a traveling overseer from 

 Meissen, in search of a situation, who was unwilling 

 to miss the opportunity when passing through Silesia, 

 to see the most celebrated apiarian of his day, and 

 examine his apiary. As regards bee-culture, I de- 

 meaned myself as an ignoramus, allowing you to 

 exhibit and explain everything. At a glance I saw 

 that my hives bore scarcely any resemhla^ice to yours, 

 and ivere of course, unserviceable. I was ready to jump 

 out of my skin, not only because of the heavy pecu- 

 niary loss I had incurred, but for the more heavy loss 

 of four years time, and the manifest derision to which 

 I had exposed myself. ******** As for the 



