174 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOUENAL. 



[Feb., 



rest, one might like thie Galitzean forester, be ready 

 to flog one's self for stupidity in not having long since 

 Jiit upon your invention. How near did Huber come 

 to it ? how near Propokovitsch ? how near, I myself ? 

 Only think, in 1843, induced by tlie description and 

 illustration of the Propokovitsch hive, I constructed 

 one in which each comb hung in a frame and could 

 be taken out. I also cemented guide combs to the 

 frames, and all worked exceeclingly well, except that 

 in no conceivable manner could I fasten the separate 

 frames properly in the hive or case, made in all re- 

 spects like yours with a door behind. It was, and ever 

 continued to be, a mere juggle, like Jahne's hoop hive. 

 Had I inserted tlie frames ci-osntcifte instead of length- 

 u'ise, I should have had your hive earlier than you had 

 it yourself, and should not have had occasion to solicit 

 Mr. Schmidt, as I now do most earnestly, to dispatch 

 the model SahmenlUfter to his lumber garret." 



On this occasion, and in the letter from which I 

 have been quoting, the Baron presents to the notice 

 of Dzicrzon and invites his criticism of his twenty- 

 eight hive Bee Pavilion, of which he gives an extended 

 and minute description, together with an engraved 

 illustration. 



This article was written and dated October 12th, 

 18.53 (just one week after ray patent issued), and the 

 Baron's description of his Pavilion, does not contain 

 a word about frames, nor does the illustration show 

 any ; though the latter does show bars, and bars with 

 guide combs attached. We hear nothing more about 

 frames in a Berlepsch or a Dzierzon hive, till in the 

 Extra Supplement to the Bienenzeituug issued March, 

 1853. The Baron then writes to Dzierzon (Feb. 16th, 

 1853), "There are novj no longer any bars in the 

 (Pavilion) hives, but frames exclusively, so that the 

 combs are suspended on all four sides between wood, 

 and cannot possibly break down. These frames whicla 

 I have had in my Ralimenliiftcr since 1843, are by far 

 more convenient than bars. With them it is never 

 necessary to cut loose the combs from the sides of the 

 hives (which is always a smeary job), but one can 

 draw out the entire frame witli the comb built in it. 

 It is true these frames make the hive much dearer, 

 for they miist be made by an expert carpenter, so that 

 thay may neither warp nor part, and therefore for 

 economical reasons, I omitted them at first in this 

 new hive." Still the Baron did not formally advocate 

 or defend their use till March 8th, 1855, when he ap- 

 pended some notes in their beiialf to a comtnunication 

 which appeared in the Bienenzeituug of March 15th, 

 1855. 



I shall now contrast some of the statements made 

 by the Baron in his "declaration," with others con- 

 tained in the above letters. 



In his second letter the Baron speaks of having ex- 

 posed himself to " deserved derision " by condemning 

 a hive, the plan of which he never understood, while 

 in his declaration he seems to speak as though in 1843 

 he was so well acquainted with it that he recognized 

 at a glance the importance of the invention, and 

 sought to improve it by substituting frames for bars. 

 In his letter he says : " In no conceivable manner 

 could I fasten the separate frames properly in the 

 hive or case made in all respects like yours, with a 

 door behind. It was and ever continued to be a mere 

 juggle," &c.,* while in the declaration, he says that 

 in the winter of 1850-51, "there was uo obstacle to 

 replace the frames at your pleasure ; that in short the 

 practical frame as it still exists to-day was invented — 

 that practical experience in the summer of 1851 con- 

 firmed the invention, and that in 1859 he showed an 



* Let any one attempt to adjust, Piopokovitsch fashion, 

 lengthwise \nstQ-AA of crnsswise, in a hive opeuiiig at tlie hack, 

 three tiers of frames, one above the other, and he will quickly 

 understand the Baron's "jui^gle. " 



American about eighty full hives and told him that 

 the frames had not been changed since 1851." Some., 

 of the statements in the declaration, as to the practi- 

 cal success of his frames in 1850-51, seem the more 

 difficult of explanation, when compared with others 

 made by the Baron in the Bienenzeituug for February 

 1353, in which he says in substance : " After I had 

 satisfied myself by the experiments of 1851 that nor- 

 mally the queen is the mother not only of the workers, 

 but of the drones also, I became exceedingly anxious 

 to see her supply drone cells with esgs. I wished to 

 obtain ocular demonstration of the fact. To this end, 

 in the fall of 1854, having meantime examined prop- 

 erly constructed Dzierzon hives at his apiary, I made 

 one like them, only that it had a glass door in the 

 roar, with a wooden cover ovej- it. It was made of 

 such width as' to suit the combs of some of my old 

 hives ; and about the middle of October, I selected six- 

 teen combs containing a sufficient winter supply of 

 honey,but consisting of worker-cells exclusively. There 

 was not a single drone-cell in any of these combs. 

 I inserted and arranged them in two tiers, one above, 

 the other, and introduced into the hive a strong colony 

 ■with ayoung queen. In thespringof 1853, 1 fed them 

 lavishly with slightly diluted honey, two weeks before 

 the rape came into blossom ; and on the evening of 

 the 12th of May, the bees began to hang out in clus- 

 ters. On the iOth I oliserved that on all the combs 

 the cells not stored with honey were filled with brood. 

 I now took out the first comb of the lower tier facing 

 the glass door, and inserted one containing chiefly 

 drone cells, there being only about 250 worker cells 

 in a portion of it." 



The Baron next details with all the glowing 

 enthusiasm of a genuine naturalist, his first sight 

 of a normal qneeu laying eggs successively in 

 drone and worker cells on the same comb. Now 

 if his frames in tlie summer of 1851 were a 

 practical success, where was the necessity of his 

 constructing a Dzierzon hive, and transferring bees 

 and combs into it, for an observation which could as 

 well if not better have been made in his own hive? 

 If however, his frames were inserted lengthwise in- 

 stead of crosswise, we can easily see why he adopted 

 in the fall of 1851, the crosswise arrangement, in 

 order that he might see the queen on the outside 

 comb through the glass door at the back of his new 

 hive. 



I deeply regret that Mr. King, by the wide circula- 

 tion which he has given to the Baron's declaration, 

 has compelled me in strict self-defence to seem to 

 censure a man whose name I have never mentioned 

 without respect. It is hardly necessary for me to say 

 that American beekeepers have such a just apprecia- 

 tion of the great services which the Baron von Ber- 

 lepsch has rendered to apiarian pursuits, that they will 

 not judge him harshly, even if they cannot satisfacto- 

 rily harmonize some of his statements. 



1 do not at all complain that the Baron has pro- 

 nounced my claim to have invented frames, to be 

 " ridiculous," when he supposes that I call myself 

 the absolute inventor of frames of every kind, and the 

 first to have removed surplus honey in glass or other 

 supers ! Believing that I have made such insufferable 

 pretensions, he might very naturally suspect that I 

 was base enough to patent his invention as my own.* 

 Can anyone who has read the Declaration, be at any 

 loss to conjecture by whom he was so grossly misled 

 as to the true nature and extent of my claims ? Mr. 

 King might doubtless not only have informed the 

 Baron what I actually claim, but have given him 



* I never h°ard of the Baron of Berlepsch until informed by 

 Mr. Wagiier, in August, lS-52, of his article iu the May num- 

 ber of the Bieneazeitung ; uor of P. R. Backhaus, until the 

 "declaration" was givou to the publie. 



