1873.] 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



219 



and upward ventilation, and have wintered them on 

 their summer stands. I have never wintered bees 

 yet without losing some of them. And now, right 

 here let me say, that I will give any man one 

 hundred dollars who will teach me the art of winter- 

 ing bees without the loss of a swarm. One more 

 word, and I am done. It is in regard to the loss of 

 bees in the winter of 1872. By my own experience, 

 and what I have seen, I am of the opinion that J. H. 

 Thomas has hit the nail square on the head, and that 

 no one can give a satisfactory reason why so many 

 bees died through the winter." 



[For the American Bee Journal.] 



Mr, Hazen on "Novice." 



Mr. Editor : — In a former communication, I sent 

 an answer to a question or questions proposed by 

 Mr. A. J. Root, (under the signature "Novice") and 

 in connection with the answer proposed a few ques- 

 tions, requesting an answer from him in return. 

 But, unfortunately, either I was unable to state my 

 questions so clearly as to be understood, or he thought 

 best not to answer them. He says, " We think we 

 never said we would risk one thousand colonies in 

 one apiary." Why not risk them if there is no 

 danger of over-stocking? " But as we shall increase 

 our bees as forage increases, we shall endeavor to 

 make them think the locality over-stocked even if we 

 have to keep one thousand colonies to hold our own." 

 (American Bee Journal, Sept., 1872, page 52.) 



I acknowledge some surprise that doubt or differ- 

 ence of opinion should find place on this subject. 

 Our country contains every variety of honey-pro- 

 ducing fields, from fields so barren as to render it 

 unprofitable to keep bees at all, to fields producing 

 honey-yielding flowers in great abundance. The 

 capacity of every field can be satisfactorily settled 

 only by judicious experiment and trial. 



Everything personal in our periodicals is unpleas- 

 ant to the parties interested, and to the public, but I 

 can hardly feel justified, without correcting a few 

 .mistakes in the communication of Mr. Root, 

 ("Novice,") in your issue of Volume VIII, No. 8. 

 On page 170, he says, "Shaking young bees before 

 the entrance of such hives, from other stocks, a la 

 Hazen, will certainly give large results, but could 

 any one honestly claim that such a yield was the 

 product of one hive? The depopulated stocks would 

 probably die from over-stocking." 



It is unnecessary to say what charge is implied by 

 these remarks. But I may state that the insinua- 

 tion is entirely groundless. 



The best colony I have ever had was a swarm 

 placed in my hive in 1867. It was one of ten 

 swarms bought of a neighbor, who placed them in 

 my hives, and they stood in his yard until the close 

 of the honey season. This hive has given me two 

 hundred pounds of white honey in one season, one 

 hundred and forty-three in another season, and has 

 done well every season. Last season I had two 

 swarms from it, thinking I would rather have the 

 stock for my apiary than any other I could procure. 



I have never, by any means, added to that stock, to 

 my knowledge, one single bee from other stocks, nor 

 has there ever been any addition to them but the natural 

 product of the colony, to my best knowledge and 

 belief. I should add that this honey was all stored 



in surplus honey boxes, and was all white honey, as 

 no buckwheat of consequence is raised in the vicinity. 



What we answer to another sentence is, we ask but 

 $5.00 for a right to make and use the Eureka hive, 

 or S3. 00 for a right for the Farmer's hive. 



Mr. Root adds, " Mr. Hazen, why will you parade 

 those deceptive figures ? "Any bee-keeper can use all 

 that is valuable in your hive, and no law gives you 

 any power to restrain them, and yet you do not 

 scruple to receive and solicit ten dollars for ' right to 

 make and use,' " etc. 



"Will this work never be ended, and will the 

 community never get better informed ? Remove the 

 top and two sides from any box hive, and pile, honey- 

 boxes against the sides thus exposed, and on top, 

 prepared with guide combs, etc., and you have, when 

 the whole is protected by an outer cover, the Hazen 

 hive complete." 



And do not the laws protect the first inventor of 

 such a hive? Was such a hive invented and used 

 before Mr. Hazen invented it ? And does its great 

 simplicity and ease of construction depreciate the 

 value of the invention? Does it not rather enhance 

 it? 



Mr. Root in another paragraph says, "Why don't 

 we try a Bay State hive? Because it embodies no 

 essentially different principle from Hazen's or 

 Quinby's, and we are trying one of the latter." 



If Quinby's and Alley's hives have no essentially 

 different principle from Hazen's, are they not 

 infringements upon his rights, guaranteed to him by 

 the laws of the United States, and does not their use 

 by any one render them amenable for such violation ? 



There is probably this difference, Quinby's and 

 Alley's hives have only moveable-comb frames. 

 Hazen's Eureka has either moveable frames or bars, 

 as is preferred. With experts, who extract honey or 

 deal in Italian queens, moveable frames may be con- 

 sidered a necessity. But for farmers who keep a 

 few stocks, and would not move their frames, bars 

 are probably better than frames. For my own use, I 

 prefer bars. My best colony that I have referred to 

 is in a hive with bars. 



Excuse my rambling communication in answer to 

 Mr. Root, and allow the statement of a few facts, by 

 position or supposition : 



1. A colony of bees will consume sixty pounds of 

 honey for breeding and wintering. 



2. A colony of non-swarmers will give sixty, 

 one hundred and twenty, two hundred pounds ; 

 one-half, two-thirds or more than three-quarters of 

 the honey in the field. 



3. Swarmers will give, according to Quinby, $1.00, 

 $2.00, $3.00 worth ; at twenty-five cents per pound; 

 four, eight or twelve pounds, that is, one-sixteenth, 

 one-eighth or one-fifth. 



4. The non-swarruer consumes in one case one- 

 half, in another one-third, in the other less than one- 

 quarter, the product of the field. 



5. The swarmer, in the first case, consumes six- 

 teen pounds, in the second case eight pounds, in the 

 third case six pounds, for one pound given to the 

 proprietor. 



6. In the first case, for non-swarmers of hive, 

 $5.00, one swarm, $5.00=$10.00 securing sixty 

 pounds of honey, worth $15.00; once and half the 

 amount of the outlay. In the second case, outlay 

 $10.00 ; return $30.00; three times the outlay. In 



