AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



EDITED AND PUBLISHED BY SAMUEL WAGNER, WASHINGTON, D. C. 



AT TAVO DOLLAKS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE. 



Vol. VII. 



MIAK^CH, IS-TJ^. 



No. 9. 



Mitchell & Co. Reviewed. 



Editor American Bee Journal : — Please 

 insert the following extracts from Nos. 15 and 

 10, October 15th to November 1st, 1871, of N. 

 C. Mitchell's bee paper,* that your readers may 

 have both sides. L. L. Langstroth. 



" A Word to Our Subscribers. 



" You will remember that we gave notice in the 

 last number of the Journal, that we would pub- 

 lish in tliis number the claims and disclaims of 

 Mr. Langstroth ; and just as we go to press, we 

 received from Rev. H. A. King of the Beekee'pers' 

 Journal, the statements of Baron von Berlepsch, 

 who is an eminent beekeeper of Europe, and as it 

 will look well in print, and being just the thing 

 to read in connection with Langstroth' s claims, 

 we propose to publish it. 



The reader will notice that Mr. Langstroth 

 claimed everything ; but finding that the com- 



* I have been unwilling to call N. C. Mitchell's bee 

 paper the "National Bee Journal," or Mr. King's 

 " The Bee Joxiroal and National Agriculturist," tor 

 reasons that I think will be deemed sufficient by all 

 fair-minded men. In 1861, Mr. Samuel Wajiner pub- 

 lished the first periodical devoted to bee-culture ever 

 issued in this country ; its title was the " American 

 Bee Journal." In consequence of the business dis- 

 turbances created by our lamentable civil war, this 

 publication was suspended one year from its first 

 issue. In 1866, Rev. E. Vanslyke advertised that he 

 would publish a monthly periodical, devoted to the 

 interests of bee-culture, under the title of " Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal." Ou being informed by Mr. Wag- 

 ner that this was the title of the periodical published 

 by him in 1861, and the publication of which he 

 intended soon to resume, and that therefore, while he 

 conceded the riglit of any one to publish a periodical 

 on bee-culture, he must object to his using this title. 

 Mr. Vanslyke very honorably changed the name of 

 his paper to that of " Bee Gazette." The editors of 

 our prominent agricultural papers know that articles 

 from the " American Bee Journal " have been credited 

 to Mr. King and Mitchell's periodicals, and Mr. 

 Wagner has been repeatedly informed that parties 

 have subscribed for them, s;;pposing they were sub- 

 scribing for the " American Bee Journal." I do not 

 liesitate, therefore, to stigmatize tlie conduct of 

 Messrs. King and Mitchell in assuming titles so well 

 calculated to deceive, as grossly unfair, and I believe 

 that the public will sustain the charge. 



missioner of patents would not allow the claims 

 as presented, his attorney cunningly devised 

 another plan. His motive is apparent enough, 

 his eftorts being given to mystify the claims in 

 such a manner as to deceive the beekeepers in 

 general, and determining to be obtuse as possi- 

 ble. He proceeds to draw up the disclaims of 

 Mr. Langstroth, and in fact makes such a perfect 

 job of it, that one must sift it thoroughly or he 

 will not be able to see through both his claims 

 and disclaims. To properly understand it, one 

 must need be an attorney, and a pretty clear- 

 headed one in the bargain, or he would never 

 see his way through the fog of legal lore which 

 envelopes the whole proceedings. 



We were of the opinion that Mr. Langstroth 

 had two claims that would hold good, neither of 

 which would we give a fig for, and recent devel- 

 opments have confirmed us iu the impression 

 that should the case ever be tried in any court 

 having jurisdiction in the United State.s, that 

 said court will cancel the celebrated Langstroth 

 patent ; and we have ■ serious doubts as to its 

 ever being brought up for a test. Mr. Otis is 

 the man Friday in Mr. Langstroth's life, and the 

 very course of ]\h-. Langstroth's man Fi-iday 

 permits us in taking this view of the subject. 



In the year 1S68, this man Otis commenced 

 suit against a number of men. We will mention 

 the names of some : A. F. Moon, Vanslyke and 

 Austin and others, all using different hives. 

 This man Friday kept these cases before the court 

 until even his stupidity comprehended that a 

 compromise with the parties was out of the 

 question, and accordingly withdrew them, and 

 we are told that Otis paid the cost in every case. 



But it seems at last, that Otis did get judg- 

 ment against Charles Austin, and the decision 

 of the court 3Ir. Otis had copied into Mr. Lang- 

 stroth's circxilar, and jiaraded all over the United 

 States, as a warning to all users and manufactu- 

 rers of movable comb hives, and told them that 

 their turn would come next. Nevertheless, mov- 

 able comb hives flourished, improvements were 

 made, and progression has kept steadily onward. 



Now let us look into this case, and see what 

 there is in it. There is only one judgment that 

 the Langstroth party can show any one ; and were 

 we to assert that said judgment was obtained by 

 default, you would say is it possible? and yet 

 'tis not only possible but true. 



