The insinuation that our endorsement 

 of any implement is controlled by what we 

 can make out of it financially, is sufficiently 

 refuted by the very point cited by our assail- 

 ant, by which to prove it. When in Eng- 

 land, the editor of the British Bee Journal 

 inquired what we could supply him with a 

 flat-bottomed foundation machine for. We 

 replied that it was patented, and could not 

 be purchased at all. Now it is sought to 

 torture this into proof that because we could 

 not make money out of the sale of that ma- 

 chine, we purposely "kept it from the 

 public." Consistency is a jewel, but its 

 " setting" is never jealousy and malignity ! 



In all the years we have edited and pub- 

 lished the Bee Journal, we have "de- 

 stroyed" the copy of no article "refused," 

 we have returned but 4 or 5, and have on 

 hand now less than a dozen, notwithstand- 

 ing the assertions to the contrary in the 

 above extract. Only one of these was 

 refused because we disagreed with the 

 author of it. We gave him our reasons for 

 not publishing it, as we did not wish him to 

 appear in print in an unfavorable light, be- 

 ing one of our best men. He appreciated 

 it, and thanked us for the criticism. 



In the Bee Journal, for February, 1879, 

 we stated that a co-operative paper, intended 

 to supplant all those now existing, was con- 

 templated, in Ohio. The father of this 

 " Ohio idea" has ever since been trying to 

 get it to "operate," but finding this a diffi- 

 cult matter, has repeatedly made tierce 

 attacks upon the Bee Journal, endeavor- 

 ing to work up sufficient feeling against it 

 to make the "co" operate. He accuses us 

 with trying to strangle the unborn infant, 

 but as we have not mentioned it for 14 

 months, we infer that he thinks our silence 

 on the subject is damaging to it. How sin- 

 gularly has the following statement made 

 at the Utica Convention confirmed what we 

 stated more than a year ago, that a war of 

 extermination was to be declared against all 

 the bee papers : 



We have four monthly periodicals, none of 

 which are strictly devoted to the interests of bee- 

 keepers alone, but all are run in the interests of 

 private individuals or companies, who are in some 

 direction or other interested in the manufacture of 

 supplies for the apiary, and their respective journals 

 are their advertising mediums. 



Ere another year we will be the happy possessors 

 'of a bee periodical second to none in this wide 

 world. We will then have a medium of advertise- 

 ing which will reach all persons interested in apiarian 

 pursuits. 



Let it be understood that we have no ob- 

 jection to the starting of a co-operative pa- 

 per. Let it be started at once ; ceasing the 

 boastful talk of what they are going to do ! 



The following statement was also made 

 before the Utica Convention : 



I have not referred to our other free journals for 

 the reason that they are private enterprises, and not 

 wholly within the interests of bee-keepers. They 

 have an axe to grind, therefore we cannot expect 

 too much from them ! 



If the American Bee Journal is not 



the "private enterprise" of its publishers, to 

 whom does it belong ? Certainly not to 

 those who now are seeking to destroy it, who 

 have placed themselves in a similar position 

 to that of the pretended mother, before 

 King Solomon, who clamored for the di- 

 vision and death of the innocent babe, in 

 order to tear it from its mother's arms ! 

 " Wisdom," whether in king or peasant, 

 thus easily discovers the true owner. 



The gravest error they have committed so 

 far, is to make the following attack upon 

 the National Convention : 



After carefully reviewing the proceeding of the 

 last two National Conventions, I candidly believe 

 that there is not an honest, thinking apiarist, but 

 what is convinced that our National Association is a 

 complete ring within a ring ! And judging from the 

 proceedings of the Chicago « '(invention, can you say 

 that our National Association is not managed wholly 

 in the interest of the AMERICAN Bee Journal, its 

 editor and his friends, and for their personal 

 benefit? 



The National Association in Convention at New 

 York, elected Mr. T. G. Newman as delegate to at- 

 tend the various bee and honey shows, and meetings 

 of our brother bee-keepers on the other side of the 

 Atlantic. What do we know of Mr. Newmans trip to 

 Europe from his report in the last Convention at 

 Chicago ? 



The management of our National Association must 

 be changed, or it will die a disgrace to American api- 

 culture. 



Every member of the "North American 

 Bee-Keepers' Society" is directly interested 

 in its good name and permanent success, 

 and will resent the above insult. A sufficient 

 answer to this may be made by quoting the 

 following from an editorial in the Bee 

 Keepers' Magazine, written by Mr. King 

 after his return from that Convention : 



The Chicago Convention was, in many respects, 

 the bestone ever held in thiscountry. Such unanim- 

 ity and general good feeling, with the intelligent dis- 

 cussion of a wide range of subjects, rendered it 

 indeed and in truth a "feast of reason and now of 

 soul," and we cannot but believe that the two or three 

 hundred persons who participated in this feast, fee) 

 that it was money and time profitably expended. 

 This desirable condition of things was largely due to 

 the efficiency of the officers of the Association, all 

 whom, save the Treasurer ami a few Vice Presidents 

 who were absent, wen' unanimously re-elected. 



Take it "all in all" the Convention was a "grand 

 success," and did work of permanent value to the 

 science of apiculture. 



A few copies of Mr. King's Magazine 

 and Mr. Nellis' Exchange were forwarded 

 to us for distribution in the Convention. 

 The editor of the Bee Journal personally 

 distributed these, but not one copy of the 

 Bee Journal was distributed by any one ; 

 and yet it is charged that the Convention 

 was run in the interest of the American 

 Bee Journal. Such an assertion is su- 

 premely ridiculous. 



