258 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[May,. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



Chicago, May, 1873. 



Removal. — The office of this journal is removed 

 from 146 Madison street to 25 West Lake street, 

 Chicago. 



Attack on the North American Bee-Keeper's 

 Society. 



Mr. King in the April number of his two bee 

 journals, bestows a severe and undeserved cudgelling 

 on the above-named Society. We cannot quote his 

 article in full, but the main points in it may be 

 summed up briefly, as follows : 



1. " All first efforts are more or less futile, and 

 the history of the N. A. B. K. Society furnishes no 

 exception to the rule. Although it has been in 

 operation three years, its organization is still incom- 

 plete and inefficient." 



2. Attendants "assemble without any definite 

 objects or aims; " " questions are proposed for dis- 

 cussion which no one but the proposers have ever 

 investigated, perhaps ; " and the discussions are unfit 

 to "go out to the world as the profound opinions of 

 America's best apiarians." 



3. " Compare our records with those of the Ger- 

 man societies, and how we suffer by the contrast." 



4. " Let the committee of arrangements appointed 

 at the last session go to work at once, and assign 

 definite subjects to competent persons." 



The foregoing are merely the " heads of discourse," 

 and are enlarged upon more or less fully. We have 

 a few criticisms to make on this piece of gratuitous 

 fault-finding, and propose to take up the several 

 points in their order. 



1. Whatever may be true as to the alleged futility 

 of " all first efforts," even granting that to be as 

 claimed "the rule," we boldly deny Mr. King's 

 assertion concerning the N. A. B. K. S., and affirm 

 that it does furnish an exception. Considering its 

 brief term of existence, it has been, to a gratifying 

 extent, a success. Mr. King says, " it has been in 

 operation three years." We are astonished at this 

 statement, coming as it does from the Secretary of 

 the Society, who has the records at hand, and being 

 supposed to speak "from the book," ought to be 

 accurate, not to say, truthful. The Society was 

 organized at Cleveland, in December, 1871, and there- 

 fore is not yet half the age represented. Even if 

 its birth be dated from the organization of the two 

 Associations, whose consolidation, happily effected 

 at Cleveland, formed the N. A. B. K. Society, it will 



not be "three years" old, until the latter part of 

 December, for one of these bodies met in Indian- 

 apolis at that period of 1870, and the other met in 

 Cincinnati, in February, 1871. But, as a matter of 

 fact, the Society had been in operation less than 

 sixteen months when Mr. King's article appeared in 

 print, affirming that though three years old it was 

 a futile affair. So much for the accuracy or 

 truthfulness of the complainant. 



Now, what has the Society accomplished? Well, 

 it has united the Bee-Keepers of North America in 

 one fraternity for the promotion of apiculture. 

 Commencing " away down East" at Maine, it has 

 drawn a cordon of unity around the " stern and 

 rock-bound coast of New England," the " Sunny 

 South," the "Pacific Slope," the home of the 

 " Latter Day Saints," the " Great North-west," and 

 the " Dominion of Canada." This is no mean 

 achievement, especially in view of the threatening 

 rivalries apparent at the Indianapolis and Cincinnati 

 meetings, which were hushed to sleep, — the sleep of 

 death, to all appearance, at Cleveland. 



We fail to see wherein the "organization is still 

 incomplete," or its practical working "inefficient." 

 While making these charges, Mr. King neither fur- 

 nishes illustration nor proof of them. Wherein is 

 the Society "incomplete?" Are its Constitution 

 and By-laws defective? Does it require more 

 officers? Wherein is it "inefficient?" Is not the 

 machinery well enough fitted to do its work, if 

 properly operated ? We have been at all the meet- 

 ings, and can testify that they were interesting, 

 pleasant, and profitable. Such we believe to have 

 been the general opinion. Probably the Society has 

 not accomplished what Mr. King had in view, and to 

 secure which, he prevailed on certain parties to 

 attend, by promising to pay their expenses ; but 

 individual disappointment is no evidence of organ- 

 ized inefficiency. The Society may have failed to 

 achieve narrow ends, just because it has achieved 

 broader ones. It may have overlooked " number 

 one," in its anxiety to do " the greatest good to the 

 greatest number." 



2. It is a downright libel on the large and intelli- 

 gent bodies of bee-keepers that have met in the name 

 of the N. A. B. K. S., to say they "assembled without 

 any definite objects or aims." They met to form or 

 foster acquaintance with distinguished apiarians 

 whom they had long known through their writings, 

 and with one another generally. They met to pro- 

 mote a common interest, and to glean information 

 about a favorite pursuit. They met to compare notes 

 and experiences. They met to inspect hives, extrac- 

 tors, bee-feeders, non-swarming attachments, arti- 

 ficial comb, and whatever else might be on exhibition, 



