218 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[April, 



Thus Mr. Q.'s patent was not "sneaked out,'' 

 because the "Oracle " had been consulted, but 

 if he had gone there himself and pushed it 

 through, it would have been "sneaked out." 

 These are facts. We expect Mr. W. will deny 

 them, for he has done wor>i6 than that. We 

 don't say that he owns territory in the L. L. 

 patent now. Oh, no ! 



Last spring, soon after the broadside of Wag- 

 ner, Otis & Co. (with pigtail illustrations), Mr. 

 King made application fen- a patent. He soon 

 heard that it was rejected, but believing there 

 was no good reason for rejection, lie went down 

 and argued it through, and for Mr. W.'s benefit 

 announced it in the Journal as "Patent No. 4." 

 We verily believe that Mr. W. was the cause of 

 the first rejection, and believing that he had 

 given it a quietus, had retired to his den, and 

 the first knowledge he had of its successful is- 

 sue, was when he read it in the Journal This 

 exi)lains how it was "sneaked out," and also 

 accounts for the "howl of insane fury" which 

 the great " Oracle " utters in his impotent wrath. 

 Now, lest future results should seem to con- 

 firm the opinion of Mr. W.'s admirei's that he is 

 really a prophet, let us explain how he came by 

 his knowledge. Soon after Mr. King's return 

 from Europe, he mentioned, editorially, that his 

 observations during his travels would enable him 

 to perfect certain improvements which would 

 remunerate him for his expense and time, and 

 also be of great benefit to the cause of apicul- 

 ture in America. While on a tour through the 

 West he incidentally mentioned this to several 

 prominent beekeepers, and among others to the 

 writer of the article to which Mr. W. appends 

 the filthy note from which we learn for the first 

 time that it is possible "to sneak out a patent." 

 But Mr. W. attempts to avoid the force of the 

 testimony of Mr. Moon and others by asserting 

 that thei'e was "no living principle in any of 

 their devices, and that all were failures." How 

 much such words as "ratiocination," "in terro- 

 rem," and comparing all bee hive inventors, ex- 

 cept Mr. Langstroth, to skunks — how much these 

 add to the force of his arguments we leave the 

 I'eader to decide. H there was no "living princi- 

 ple "in their hives, there is none in Langstroth's, 

 for the same principle is involved in both. How 

 could they be failures (through imperfections), 

 and Mr. L.'s a success (because perfect) when 

 the frames of the latter are only a copy of 

 theirs, and when his hive presented not one ad- 

 ditional new feature^ except the moth blocks at 

 the entrance. It is true Mr. Moon did not use 

 the triangular guide, but L. (fc Co. do not now 

 claim that as their invention. 



Is there nothing significant in the fact that 

 Harbison, Metcalf, Langstroth and others began 

 to sell hives extensively about the same time? 

 About the same time, too, that reapers, sewing 

 machines and other improvements were rapidly 

 introduced? The times were ripe for these 

 things, and their introduction wius a natural 

 result. That one man should, at that opportune 

 moment, seize on the results of other men's ex- 

 periments and years of deep thought, and by a 

 combination of favorable circumstances, secure 

 tlie protection of a patent on a set of combina- 



tions, is no proof that he invented a single fea- 

 ture of the device. " Success " is not always the 

 infallible evidence of success. 



Mr. W. well knows why the testimony of Ber- 

 lepsch cannot be used as legal testimony. But the 

 fact that our laws provide that the prior use of 

 an invention in a foreign country shall not invali- 

 date a patent here, unless such invention shall 

 have been patented, or shall have been described 

 in a printed publication, does not aft'ect the 

 trutJiH stated in the Baron's oath. In that oath 

 he declai'es that he used the identical Langstroth 

 frame (more properly the Moon frame) six years 

 in advance of Mr. L., and that there are many 

 living witnesses who will attest the truth of his 

 statements. Mr. W. exhibits astonishing zeal 

 in trying to make the American public believe 

 that Langstroth is "the original inventor," 

 and in the lace of the testimony of such a 

 man as Berlepsch, asserts that up to December, 

 1851, " and lor many months thereafter, there 

 were no practical trances in use in Germany." 

 We are glad he is drawing nearer the truth, 

 though slowly and cautiously. Ten years ago 

 he said Berlepsch "adopted " the frames in 1855 ; 

 last spring he dropped oft" two years, and put it 

 1853 ; 71010 he says "up to 1851," and the indefi- 

 nite for " many months thereafter." Wc hoi^e 

 he has not reached the "minimum," but will 

 yet "drop another cat." Mr. L. himself comes 

 a little nearer the truth, for he says, " after my 

 application had been favorably decided upon, 

 Berlepsch invented frames of a somewhat simi- 

 lar character." But Mr. W. " does not wish to 

 influence public opinion" by publishing the 

 Berlepsch oath. Oh, no ! That would be de- 

 cidedly wrong ! Investigation and National 

 Associations were all right last spring ; but they 

 are going too far to suit Mr. W.'s ideas of what 

 is right and proper. Credit is given to whom 

 credit is due. Public opinion is changing, and 

 National Associations give expression to public 

 opinion. 



But, again, he did not know how much garb- 

 ling the Berlepsch oath had undergone in Mr. 

 King's hands. He did know that he had "shame- 

 fully garbled Mr. L.'s letters to suit his own base 

 purposes." 



This is not an "insinuated untruth," but a 

 positioe falsehood. There is but (?7i6' letter which 

 Mr. L. ever complained of, but Mr. W. says 

 " letters." Let him produce them. The letter 

 in question is now in this office, and that and the 

 Orio-inal Berlepsch Oath can be examined by any 

 one^wishing to test the value of Mr. W.'s as- 

 sertions. An extract from the letter was pub- 

 lished in the August number of the Bee Keepers' 

 Journal for 1870. There were three paragraphs 

 in the letter. The first related to the death of 

 his son, the second concerning persons whom 

 Air. L claimed to infringe on his patent, and the 

 third related to Mr. K.'s proposition to terminate 

 an arrangement which had existed between 

 them. AVe reproduce the first paragraph here, 

 italicising the words which were not published 

 in the extract : 



Oxford, O., June 27, 1870. 

 Messrs. H. A. King & Co., 

 (iENTLE.MEN :— Mj soQ (J. T. L.) died in Massa- 



