9.^9. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[April, 



ami just, and even if I differ in opinion witli you, 

 I liave neither the health nor disposition to contest 

 the matter. 



Tours truly, 



L. L. Langstroth. 



It was to tins letter tliat Mr. Waj^ner referred 

 in the January No. of his .Tournal, when he said 

 — "We do know that Mr. King shamefully 

 garbled Mr. Langstroth's letters to suit his own 

 base purpose." Mr. Williams says this assertion 

 about jrarbled letters is a "positive falsehood," 

 and that " there is but one letter of which Mr. 

 L. ever complained," but Mr. Wagner says 

 "letters." "Let him produce them." Will 

 Mr. Wagner's charge fall to the ground, if Mr. 

 King has garbled only one letter ? I hoped for 

 many reasons, never to have been compelled to 

 publish that letter, every thought of which only 

 makes a parent's heart bleed afresh — but I^Ir. 

 King's authorized champion demanded it, and 

 to vindicate Mr. Wagner, I have produced it. 

 On my own responsibility, therefore, I re-affirm 

 the charge, that the letter was "shamefully 

 garbled" — and if I did not suppose tliat Mr. 

 Williams is very imperfectly acquainted with 

 the wrongs that I have suffered from Mr. King, 

 I would say that the partial extract and com- 

 ment, designed to show that Mr. King fairly 

 reproduced it, is almost as bad as the original 

 offence. Let it be understood, that my letter was 

 addressed to a man who had appropriated both 

 engravings and ideas from my work on bee-keep- 

 ing, giving me no credit for the one, and worse 

 than none for the other— who grossly infringed 

 foi' years on all the essential and pateirted fea- 

 tures of my hives — who after he had secured 

 impunity by the terms of our license, advertised 

 liimself not as licensed to use one feature in our 

 patent, but as having out of liis desire to do jus- 

 tice, purchased a general interest in the Langstroth 

 patent! Let it be remembered, I say, that this 

 letter was addressed to sit,eh a man — to whom I 

 had never written a line except on strict matters 

 of business, and in whose paper we had never 

 been willing to insert even a business advertise- 

 ment — and will it not be judged a base act that 

 (omitting the allusion to the sad circumstances 

 under which his letter came to me), he should 

 divide mine into two, and publish the first part 

 of it, as a special letter addressed to himself? 

 How could his readers infer otherwi.se, than that 

 I must be on intimate terms of friendship witli 

 Mr. King, when in my hour of bitterest anguish, 

 mourning over the death of my only son, I un- 

 bosomed myself to him ! His comments also on 

 til is letter make it impossible for any one to 

 think otherwise. 



■jt * * « \^Q were personally acquainted with 

 the deceased, who was the only son of Rev. L. L. 

 Laiiiistroth, and associated with him in business. * 

 * * He was au attectionate son, and wc deeply 

 sympathise with his parents and friends in their be- 

 reavement, but- especially with his noble father, who 

 has been in feeble heal li for years, and bein'4 hiijhly 

 endowed l.y nature, education and association with 

 the finer feelings, this arrow of affliction will pierce 

 his heart with such anguish as but few can under- 

 stand." 



Could I keep out of my memory as my eye 



first glanced over these kind words, that coarse 

 suggestion that " we had too much wisdom and 

 honor to threaten in a pretended rage ?" 



I earnestly desire to do no injustice whatever to 

 ]\Ir. King, in the views I cannot but take of this 

 matter. I know that some of my best friends, 

 when they saw this letter to Mr. King in print — 

 knowing our previous relations, felt that disease 

 must have lamentably weakened my judgment 

 or I never could have written it. 



Worse yet remains. Let us supj)ose that Mr. 

 King's sense of honor would not lead him to 

 think that it was anything more than a shrewd 

 business act to publish part of my letter as a 

 special letter to him.self. What view must we 

 take of the use made of the rest of it ? It be- 

 comes a second Je'fer — and as the fii'st was one of 

 friendship, this becomes one of business. The 

 following from the August, 1870, number of Mr. 

 King's paper will show how he gave it to liis 

 readers : 



" We wrote Mr. Langstroth, in May last, offering 

 a small consideration to close up our arraniienient, 

 assigning reasons why we were now neither legally 

 nor morally holden, and he replied as follows : " I 

 am too feeble to discuss the question whether under 

 all the circumstances you ousrht to account to ns any 

 further. * * * Do what you think to be honora- 

 ble and just, and even if I differ in opinion with you, 

 I have neither the health nor the disposition to con- 

 test the matter. Yours truly, 



L. L Langstroth. 



We made remittance and thus closed an arransre- 

 ment, the existence of which unprincipled men have 

 used to make the people believe it applied to the use 

 of movable frames, and that our hives could only be 

 used in territory owned by Mr. Langstroth when the 

 arrangement was made." 



By comparing the original and Mr. King's 

 version, the reader will be able to see 7iOW the 

 letter was garbled. He first omits the sorrowful 

 reason given for not prosecuting infringers. Did 

 he wish to conceal from all other jjatentees of 

 movable comb-hives, whose champion he now 

 claims to he, thai Tie had asked us to prosecute 

 them ?* 



He next suppresses entirely a condition essfntial 

 to the proper und'r standing of aH that follows, 

 and u.ses just enough as a second letter, to 

 suit his selfi.sh purposes ! Common decency 

 ought to liave made Mr. King ashamed to 

 publish this letter, even if instead of ampu- 

 tating and mu'ilating it, he had given it just as 

 it was written — but my allusions to poverty 

 and sickness, seemed to suggest to him only how 

 he might turn them to the best money profit. 



* " Movable comb-hives, whether they contain pat- 

 ented features or not, when made without the closed 

 top slot (or morticed frame), to avoid our patents, 

 are sure to infriu2:e on Mr. L's extended patent, and 

 those who use such hives are required to pay dearly 

 for another right, as his patent covers fi-ames having 

 a shallow chamber, or space lietween the frames 

 and honey board, or even between the top bars, 

 and our patent covers the other kind, where the top. 

 bars form a lioney board witli slots to admit the bees 

 to the honey-boxes." (King's Bee-keeper's Text 

 Book, p. 140,— ed. 1SG9). And yet Alfred Kelly used 

 just this arrangement on his patent of 1857 ! 



