345 



Weston's Mills, X. Y.. June 18, 1880. 



My partner, Geo. A. Wickwire. and 

 myself desire some information con- 

 cerning the workings of our bees this 

 spring, as their conduct, to us, at least, 

 is a little surprising. The facts are 

 these : Our colonies were cased and 

 packed in chaff last fall on the summer 

 stands, and came through the winter in 

 good condition, and in the spring were 

 strong and healthy, with a large amount 

 of brood, and no speckled or mildewed 

 comb. Up to May 10 a fair proportion 

 of drones was observed. Upon that 

 date a heavy frost occurred, which 

 killed all our honey-producing flowers, 

 and since that time no drones have been 

 seen. Our bees have shown no disposi- 

 tion to swarm up to this date, while 

 other colonies in this vicinity, which 

 were not packed, and which came 

 through the winter in a weak and un- 

 healthy condition, have cast their first 

 swarms. Our bees were transferred to 

 the Langstroth hives about the middle 

 of May, and no queen cells were dis- 

 covered at that time. They are now 

 storing rapidly, and, upon examination, 

 we find queen cells that have been fin- 

 ished and then destroyed. About 50 

 colonies have been wintered in the man- 

 ner described, and are working in this 

 unusual way, showing no disposition to 

 swarm. Can you tell us any reason for 

 their strange behavior? We have no 

 unusual amount of box-room. Our hives 

 are overflowing with bees. Would it 

 be advisable to swarm artificially at this 

 late period in the season ? 



R. V. King. 



[Your bees evidently commenced to 

 breed early, and when the frost occur- 

 red which killed the bloom, they were 

 discouraged and killed the drones, they 

 probably destroyed the worker brood 

 and have not been strong enough since 

 to prepare for swarming. As they are 

 now srtong, they maybe divided.— Ed.] 



Port Leyden,N. Y., June 21, 1880. 

 Desiring to purchase a good comb 

 foundation machine, I sent for samples 

 from 4 different manufacturers, and I 

 selected the Olm as the best and cheap- 

 est. In due time my machine came, and 

 lam satisfied with the work it does. lean 

 make foundation with heavy cell walls 

 and very thin base, of the natural shape 

 for the brood chamber, or starters for 

 boxes. My bees accept it readily, and 

 draw it out much sooner than any other 

 that I have ever used. These machines 

 are compound gear and well made, and 

 I believe are bv far the best and cheap- 

 est made. M. M. Stimson. 



Winooski, Wis., June 5, 1880. 



On page 298 of the Bee Journal for 

 June, I notice that Jas. Forncrook 

 claims a patent on the one-piece sec- 

 tion, and on page 299, Lewis & Parks 

 state that there is no patent on it. 

 Which shall we believe of these con- 

 tradictory statements ? I would like to 

 know the facts in the case. 



G. II . Pierce. 



[The facts are these : Both of these 

 parties have applied for a patent, and 

 so has Mr. T. J. Dalzell, of Michigan. A 

 patent has been allowed to Jas. Forn- 

 crook & Co., after a prolonged litigation 

 between the two parties at Watertown, 

 Wis. Then came Mr. Dalzell's claim, 

 and an " interference " was instituted 

 between him and Jas. Forncrook & Co., 

 before the patent was issued. Now 

 this " case " will be " tried," and as 

 soon as it is decided we shall give it in 

 the Bee Journal. The " discrep- 

 ancy " in the advertisements com- 

 plained of is simply this : Jas. Forn- 

 crook & Co. say that the "patent has 

 been allowed,"' and Lewis & Parks say 

 that " there is no patent on it." It is a 

 dispute over technicalities— but both 

 are absolutely correct. — Ed.] 



Watertown, Wis., June 14, 1880. 

 Editor Bee Journal : Will you do 

 us the kindness to set us right before 

 your many readers. We have adver- 

 tised to your readers that there is no 

 patent on the Lewis section. In your 

 last issue Mr. James Forncrook claims 

 to have a patent on said section, and 

 holds us up to your readers as swin- 

 dlers in that we have tried to mislead 

 the public by saying there is no patent 

 on the section. Now we again state 

 that there is no patent on this section, 

 and if you will do us the justice to write 

 to the Commissioner of Patents you will 

 officially ascertain that no patent has 

 ever been issued to any one on said sec- 

 tion. Lewis & Parks. 



[As the patent was "allowed" but 

 not " issued," because of another " in- 

 terference " being instituted by Mr. T. 

 J. Dalzell, both statements can be 

 reconciled. We regret that these gen- 

 tlemen should be so enthusiastic. It 

 would be much better to make a plain 

 statement of the facts, rather than to 

 dispute about technicalities. See our 

 answer to G. H. Pierce.— Ed.] 



