20 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



eral. Among these, the saving in time 

 and the prevention of robbing are the 

 leading benefits. If there are any burr- 

 combs between the brood-chamber and 

 the supers, with the least honey in them, 

 this honey is lilcely to attract robbers, if 

 the hive is left open any length of time. 

 When the escape is put on, the bees are 

 so little disturbed that robbers have no 

 chance, and when the super is removed 

 a few hours later, all traces of leaking 

 honey have disappeared, and the colony 

 need not be disturbed any more than 

 enough to keep the bees from stinging 

 while the work is going on out of their 

 reach. Undoubtedly this method is still 

 more advantageous to the comb-honey 

 producer than to the extracting man, 

 but it is of much greater benefit to us 

 than we had anticipated. 



There are only a few instances when 

 the use of escapes might be objection- 

 able ; for instance, when the weather is 

 exceedingly hot, and the hive is ex- 

 posed to the direct rays of .the sun. The 

 The closing up of the ventilation, by 

 putting on the escape, might cause the 

 combs to break down in the super, from 

 heat. One should also be careful not to 

 leave the super in such shape that rob- 

 ber bees may find their way into it, for 

 after access from the hive to the super 

 has been cut off by the escape, and the 

 honey-board that holds it, the bees of 

 the hive are powerless to protect the 

 stores that are thus put out of their 

 reach. 



On the whole, we consider the bee- 

 escape as a valuable addition to the bee- 

 keeper's implements. 



Hamilton, Ills. 



Tlie Orip of Foul Brooi. 



Written for the American Bee Journal 



BY J. A. GKEEN. 



I believe that Mr. Cornell has mis- 

 quoted me on page T60 of the Bee 

 JouKNAL for December, 1893, and he is 

 certainly in error in saying that I have 

 " repeatedly " made such a statement. 

 However, I will not stop now to look 

 the matter up, but will define my posi- 

 tion anew. 



I do not believe, as one might infer 

 from the quotation attributed to me, 

 that bacteria are always the result, and 

 never the cause, of disease. At the only 

 time I remember making any such state- 

 ment, I expressly stated that I was not 

 attacking the germ theory of disease. It 

 is too firmly established to be affected 



by argument. In the main, I believe in 

 it thoroughly. I also believe, and in this 

 belief I am only the follower of at least 

 a " respectable minority," that the fact 

 that bacilli are to be found in diseased 

 tissue is not in itself a proof that that 

 particular form of bacillus is the cause 

 of the diseased condition. 



It also seems to be a fact that very 

 careful experiments have sometimes 

 failed for a time to show the distinction 

 between cause and effect. For instance, 

 a newspaper item recently stated that 

 late investigations had decided that the 

 "comma bacillus" — the discovery of 

 which caused such a sensation in the 

 scientific world — was not the cause of 

 cholera, but merely a companion of the 

 disease, the real cause of which must be 

 looked for further. I did not pursue the 

 subject further, so I cannot say how 

 much of the truth there may be in the 

 report, but it serves to illustrate my 

 position, that it is very easily possible 

 for the bacteriologist to jump at conclu- 

 sions, and hastily decide that the microbe 

 so plainly in evidence in the matter un- 

 der investigation and in his subsequent 

 cultures, is the very one for which he is 

 looking, the cause of the diseased con- 

 dition, when perhaps some other microbe, 

 more minnte or elusive, is the real cause. 



I have never questioned Mr. Cheshire's 

 discovery of bacillus alvei. He may ap- 

 pear to have succeeded perfectly in its 

 isolation and culture. What I claim is, 

 that there is room for a reasonable doubt 

 that this bacillus is the cause of foul 

 brood. I base this doubt upon the well 

 proven fact that those who have at- 

 tempted its cure along the lines laid 

 down by the bacteriologists, have met 

 with almost uniform failure, while those 

 who have discarded their teachings, 

 and followed methods which presuppose 

 another cause for the disease, have met 

 with as uniform success. It appears to 

 be simply a case where the facts do not 

 fit the theory. It is said that a French 

 theorist, upon being told that the facts 

 did not agree with his theory, replied, 

 "Zen so much ze worse for ze facts." I 

 regret to say that some of the writers on 

 this subject seem to have considerable 

 of the same spirit. 



It is my opinion that the real cause of 

 foul brood is yet to be discovered. In 

 saying this, I will readily admit that I 

 have not my myself made microscopical 

 investigation of the disease, and that my 

 training in bacteriology has been some- 

 what limited. There are few, though, 

 that have had a larger practical experi- 

 ence with foul brood than I. All that 



