250 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[May, 



■while in December, 1870, Mr. Kirifr telegraphed 

 to the convention at Indianapolis, these words : 



'* R. C. Otis, of Wisconsin is publicly niakiug many 

 false statemeuts to defeat uniou at Cincinnati. Mr. 

 Otis is no true friend to Mr. Laugstroth." (See Am. 

 B. J., Feb., 1871, p. 173.) 



We call special attention to Mr. King's un- 

 qualified admission that up to last March, "Mr. 

 Langstroth had maintained his usual dignified 

 position in this controversy." Oar course, how- 

 ever highly appreciated, was no protection 

 against his insinuations of bribery, fraud and 

 personal dishonor ; nor from his very w«-digni- 

 tied sneers. The public will judge whether we 

 have vindicated our friend by dischai'ging "the 

 sacred duty that was laid upon us of exposing" 

 his calumniators. We have never attempted to 

 infiuence any one to attack the character of Mr. 

 King. 



One year ago, in the presence of one of Mr. 

 Otis' attorneys, we told Mr. King that his hives, 

 in our opinion, had nothing of special value not 

 covered by our patent ; and that if at the begin- 

 ning of his apiarian career he had h.onestly taken 

 hold of our invention instead of infringing upon 

 it, he might by his eneigy have made a fortune 

 for us both. We think so still. 



As we have never desired any compromise, but 

 have sought in every legitimate way to bring the 

 suit to a trial, our readers will place the proper 

 estimate upon Mr. King's assertions, inferences, 

 and conjectures on this subject. 



Strong professions, of a desire to guard the 

 public against "black mail," are suspicious, 

 wheij made by one who has never remonstrated 

 agaiftst the " beveled edge comb-guide" fraud, 

 and who is engaged in selling " rights'''' to a hive 

 which, while claiming to be covered by three 

 patents, uses with some petty exceptions, the 

 patented features of none of them. 



Mr. King says that a year ago "he had not 

 the thousandth part of tlie evidence against the 

 Langstroth patent that he now has ; " and yet he 

 iluni informed us tliat the foreign evidence, if put 

 into proper shape, was enough. Discerning 

 men, gauging his necessities in the suit by liis 

 "year of toils" in Europe and America, will 

 only laugh when he calls my claims "ridicu- 

 lous ;" they can never believe that he piles such 

 Pelions upon Ossas, in the way of testimony, 

 out of mere zeal for works of su)>ererogation ! 



We want no charity from Mr. King, l^ut if the 

 courts decide that he has our money we shall be 

 glad to get it. 



Until Mr. King says that the revelation to the 

 whole world of that "solemn vow" was unau- 

 thorized by him, he cannot be acquitted of the 

 cliarge of violating the Master's precepts. 



In the supplement to the January, 1871, No. 

 of his paper, Mr. King began this controversy 

 through the press, by devoting nearly three col- 

 umns to a bitter attack ttpon the personal and 

 business character of Mr. Otis. He prefaced it 

 with this declaration: "It has been a rule of 

 our life tliat when we could not speak well of a 

 man, we would say nothing about him. We do 

 not now propose to violate this rtile" — and yet 

 Le scritpled not to insinuate that Mr. Otis had 



been guilty of bribery and fraud, and makes 

 this fling at his religious character : " We once 

 rejjroved him, and should judge from his an- 

 swer that he formerly belonged to a Christian 

 church, but is now living in a backslidden state." 

 Can a man who with loud professions of lofty 

 morality, thus assails the good name of a busi- 

 ness competitor, feel surprised that the purity of 

 his motives shoitld be questioned, or that men 

 should think that while he "prays cream, he 

 lives only skim milk ? " 



That our readers may see how little of extract 

 or quotation, and how mttcli of a desire to injure 

 us, there is in that part of his report which we 

 criticized, we give the language which he used. 

 After describing "a beautiful honey pyramid 

 which Mr. Moon had placed upon the President's 

 table," he says : , 



" An article appeared in one of the Cleveland 

 papers next day, to the effect that the beekeepers of 

 America were greatly indebted to Mr. Moon for the 

 first invention of movable comb frames in America, 

 which have been used in various forms since their 

 first invention by liim in 1838. Although we did not 

 know of its intended puhlicution there until we saw 

 it in the paper, yet we speak advisedly when we say 

 that the movable frame, with narrow top bars sus- 

 pended on rabbits, with shallow chamber, etc., should 

 be called the ' Moon Frame." 



If Mr. King still " thanks us for our just criti- 

 cism," will lie show it by retracting his charge 

 that we violated the generous confidence reposed 

 in us by those two conventions, or mu.st we 

 accept his recognition of our previous "dignified 

 position," as a full withdrawal of all charges up 

 to tlie date of that March personal ? 



Mr. King's failure to answer grave charges, 

 while he carefully vindicates his historical accu- 

 racy from a typographical error, is very sugges- 

 tive of that " interpolated the.'''' 



We are quite willing to wait for the Baron's 

 explanation of the supposed discrepaniics. 



"^ A well axuumed vwral indignation!'^ Mr. 

 King may yet have occasion to say : " These are 

 a few of the unpleasantcst words pen ever put 

 to paper. ' ' 



btretched wounded and helpless on our bed, 

 the best of friends had died in an adjoining- 

 room : instead of his genial morning saluta- 

 tions, came stidden word that he was danger- 

 ously ill, followed in a few minutes by the 

 terrible announcement that he was dead. Mr. 

 King cf)ming (as he himself takes pafns to 

 inform the public) to that house of sorrow — 

 need we say unbidden and most unwelcome — 

 learned by his intrusion all these facts from our 

 own lips ; was, therefore, personally acquainted 

 with the circumstances under which we wrote — 

 heard tliat there was no likeness of our departed 

 friend, and that we had not lieen able to take 

 even a last look at his remains ; knew furtlier 

 how soon after that visit there came to that 

 alflicted family the accusations which appeared 

 in the Indianapolis Journal. What need alas ! 

 was there on our part of any pretended moral in- 

 dignation '? and what a revelation does this man 

 make of him.self by his cruel suggestion ! 



If we did step beyond the limits which wc had 

 previously assigned to ourselves in this contro- 



