170 



Now, a year after this error was fully ex- 

 plained, we are denounced for the former, 

 and no notice taken of the latter ; the Sec- 

 retary remarking to the Convention that he 

 sent us a contradiction of the " base asser- 

 tions," and that we refused him a hearing, 

 and "continued to heap accusations upon 

 the producers," though not a word concern- 

 ing it has since appeared in the Joitrnal. 

 The Secretary sent us a very abusive article, 

 and demanded its publication exactly as 

 written, or its immediate return to him. 

 Being evidently written for the purpose of 

 having it returned, we did so, with the fol- 

 lowing courteous explanatory letter : 



Chicago, Jan. 27, 1879. 

 Mr. Geo. W. House: Dear Sir— Yours came duly to 

 hand. A letter from Mr. P. B. Thurber says the re- 

 port was gotten up by a malicious and jealous enemy 

 of their house, and lie has an article in the February 

 number concerning it. Am exceedingly glad to hear 

 that it is not adulterated and confiscated as reported. 

 There will be no need of publishing your article now. 

 Thus. G. Newman. 



In the above we did not even hint at the 



abusive language in the article, and thus 



sadly disappointed the young man who now 



assails the Journal, thus : 



How have the contributors of the American 

 Bee. Journal been treated ? Itisafactthatarticles 

 are mutilated to correspond with the views of the 

 editor or his friends, without any reasons for so do- 

 ing. What would you think if you knew your arti- 

 cles were first sent to Bingham, Clute, Doolittle & Co. 

 for their approval or disapproval ? Communications 

 that will further tjieir interests are highly endorsed 

 and published, while those in conflict with his ideas 

 are destroyed. Apiarian supplies that pay the 

 highest commisssion, get the best endorsement, 

 while those articles over which he has no control are 

 kept from the public. See British Bee Journal, Dec. 

 No., page 1(U, in relation to cost of flat-bottomed 

 foundation machines. 



The fact that we have published hundreds 

 of articles which we do not approve, dis- 

 arms this charge. We are obliged to " fix 

 up," and often " copy" articles sent us for 

 publication, and nearly all our contributors 

 urge us to do so ; but have never knowingly 

 changed an idea of the writer. We have 

 had many letters similar to the following 

 private note from Mr. Alley, just received, 

 who, we hope, will pardon its use here as a 

 sample : 



Wenham, Mass., March 11, 1880. 

 Friend Newman : I send you a rough manuscript, 

 but as it is unlike anything you ever received, I guess 

 you can make it all out, and make it appear well 

 when in print. You can do as well in that line as any 

 one I ever saw. H. Alley. 



The intimation that we send the articles 

 of our correspondents to the gentlemen 

 named, and unless they are approved by 

 them, we refuse to publish them, is as con- 

 temptible as it is false. Let the following 

 letters settle that point : 



Otsego, Mich., March 13, 1880. 

 Mr. Editor : I have read the arraignment by Mr. 

 House, in which my name figures as one of the trio, 

 or tribunal, to which communications written for the 

 Bee Journal are said to be submitted. I know not 

 what the others may say, but as for myself, I have 

 never been so honored or thus consulted. 



In relation to controlling convention reports, I can 

 only speak for the Michigan Convention, and state 

 that all the reports I have furnished as its Secretary, 

 to the American Bee Journal, have been pub- 

 lished as reported. 



The true way to change the management of the 

 North American Bee-Keepers' Society is to attend 

 its meetings, or petition it, if parties feel aggrieved. 

 It is, to say the least, in questionable taste to arraign 

 its President for the manner in which he conducts 

 his private business, so long as he fills the chair with 

 acknowledged honor. 



Further, it affords me great pleasure to know that 

 the inventor of improved Bee Smokers did not con- 

 tribute a five or ten dollar advertisement to the pro- 

 gramme and invitation to the North-Kasiern Con- 

 vention, as solicited by its honorable Secretary ; and 

 that I did not enter a " Bingham Smoker" for premi- 

 um, where interested officers appointed the judges. 

 It is true, as the report states, that " Bingham's new 

 style smokers were on exhibition," but it was in J. H. 

 Nellis' exhibit, with the Bingham & Hetherington 

 Knives, and such other good things as Mr. Nellis 

 selected, to show and compete for the best and larg- 

 est exhibit of apiarian supplies. It is needless to say 

 that Mr. Nellis obtained the prize. 



If it were not that Bingham might be accused of 

 using this opportunity to advertise, he would state 

 the fact that he has received more orders for smok- 

 ers from New York State in the 30 days since the 

 Utiea Convention, than in any previous 3 months 

 since the invention of direct-draft smokers. 



Respectfully yours, T. F. Bingham. 



A Card.— I observe that at the recent meeting of 

 the North-Eastern Bee-Keepers' Convention, at 

 Utica. N. Y., somebody, in speaking of the Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal and its editor, asked, of the con- 

 tributors to that journal and others interested, the 

 question, " What would you think if you knew your 

 articles were first sent to Bingham, Clute, Doolittle 

 & Co., for their approval or disapproval '.'" So far as 

 this question has reference to me, I affirm most fully 

 and positively that nothing was ever sent to me from 

 the office of the American Bee Journal, or from 

 any person who has any connection with that office 

 either directly or indirectly, for my approval or dis- 

 approval. My advice has never been asked or given 

 as to the articles which should appear in the Jour- 

 nal, nor as to the method and spirit in which it 

 should be conducted. Knowing how entirely the 

 question is without foundation as regards myself, 1 

 have the best reason to believe that it is equally 

 without foundation as regards the other parties 

 named, 



At the same meeting of the North-Eastern Con- 

 vention "the opinion was expressed that the National 

 Association was run by a ring, for selfish purposes, 

 and facts were cited to establish this view." It was 

 my good fortune to attend the National Association 

 for the first time at the Chicago meeting, and to be 

 honored by election to its board of officers. I am 

 entirely ignorant of any desire or attempt to run 

 that Association for the benefit of any ring. I do 

 not believe that any ring exists in connection with 

 its management, nor that any person or persons are 

 trying to run the Association for selfish purposes. 

 In thinking over what was done at Chicago, I can call 

 to mind only one thing that could be tortured 

 into a support of such a charge. The National Asso- 

 ciation declined to allow itself to be drawn into the 

 consideration of charges made by one member 

 against another in regard to matters having no con- 

 nection with the Association, concerning which the 

 Association had no jurisdiction, and could have given 

 no satisfaction to either party, even if it had wasted 

 a large part of its time in the vain attempt to sift the 

 charges. So long as our bee-keeping associations 

 are conducted in the interests of bee-keeping, they 

 will command the cordial support of honest bee- 

 keepers. When they become the arenas for the dis- 

 play of personal animosities, and for airing the dif- 

 ferences between rivals in business, those of us who 

 have respect for ourselves and our calling will stay 

 at home. O. Clute. 



Iowa City, Iowa, 15th March, 1880. 



Borodino, N. Y., March 16, 1880. 

 Mr. Editor : At the North-Eastern Convention, 

 Mr. House intimated that you submit the commu- 

 nications written for the American Bee Jour- 

 nal to "Bingham, Clute, Doolittle & Co., for their 

 approval or disapproval," and that unless such are 

 approved by us, you will not publish them. As I have 

 never seen even one such communication before pub- 

 lication, I demand that Mr. House either prove his 

 assertion or make a public apology to me. As that 

 Convention awards prizes to those most interested 

 in supplies, their course towards you is extremely 

 inconsistent, and their accusations against the 

 American Bee Journal, in reference to honey 

 markets, are ridiculous. G. M. DOOLITTLE. 





