392 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Xlie Canadian Bee Journal im- 

 proves with each succeeding number. It is 

 printed on an excellent quality of paper, 

 and its contents are equally good. Bro. 

 Holtermann is bound to make a success of 

 his venture, and Canadian bee-keepers 

 ought to turn in and support him heartily. 

 Of course, we would naturally advise every 

 bee-keeper to fini become a subscriber to 

 the American Bee Journal ; but to that 

 "means of grace." we think Canadian api- 

 arists should then add their own journal. 

 The Canadian and the American harmo- 

 nize very nicely on the main objects to be 

 attained unto in practical bee-culture. 



Bro. E. P. <tuBg-ley, of the Proc/rea- 

 sive Bee-Keeper, has been promoted. Instead 

 of being " associate editor," he is now one 

 of the two " editors " of the continually 

 progressing Progressive. Bro. R. B. Leahy, 

 its publisher, is one of the pmhuir/ kind, and 

 knows how to "get there " if anybody does. 



Hear Ye tlie Juclg'e. — On page 296 

 we suggested that Hon. Eugene Secor, the 

 Apiarian Judge at the World's Fair, per- 

 haps could set all to rights in the matter of 

 the Ontario honey at the World's Fair, and 

 thus possibly " avoid any unnecessary dis- 

 cussion." Here is what he has kindly writ- 

 ten us in regard to the subject : 



Forest Citt, Iowa, March 12, 1S94. 

 Editor " America7i Bee Journal .•" 



In your issue of March Sth, you appeal to 

 me to set matters right touching your con- 

 troversy with Bro. McKnight. I don't know 

 as I can do it. This seems to be a case of 

 Canuck vs. Yankee. Each fellow has a chip 

 on his shoulder. Both appear to be jealous 

 of the reputation of their respective coun- 

 tries. I, too, am proud of my native land, 

 and perhaps I shall not be able to divest 

 myself of prejudice sufficiently to act as 

 referee between you. And then, Bro. Mc- 

 Knight may object for the reason that I 

 live south of the Dominion. 



But it seems to me that for once we ought 

 to be neither Canadians nor Yankees, but 

 Cosmopolitans — at least those of us who 

 live on this side of the imaginary line that 

 separates us. For the Columbian Exposi- 

 tion was a World's Fair with a big W. The 

 United States were the entertainers. Citi- 

 zens of the world were our invited guests. 

 We ought not now to get into any contro- 

 versy with our visitors concerning the ex- 

 cellence or lack of excellence of their exhib- 

 its, or try to show that our own were 

 superior. I apprehend that the American 

 judges were magnanimous enough in the 

 disposition of awards, not only to give 



every foreign exhibitor his just dues, but 

 to give them the benefit of' the doubt, if 

 such existed. Such was the Spirit of the 

 Management toward those who, at great 

 expense, tried to make our Fair a success. 



Now, in reference to the disputed word 

 "competition." According to Webster's 

 International Dictionary, and the modifica- 

 tions which Bro. McKnight and yourself 

 both seem to accept, it appears to me there 

 is not any real difference between you. 



I suppose it is understood by most people 

 who had exhibits there, and by others who 

 have had access to information as to the 

 manner of judging, that in most things 

 there was no " first prize," as at fairs gen- 

 erally. (An exception was allowed, I think, 

 in the stock department, where prizes were 

 awarded). Our instructions were that 

 comparisons between exhibits for the pur- 

 pose of recommending awards to the best 

 was not the theory of the Commission, but 

 that we were to report upon everything on 

 its individual merits, and name the " par- 

 ticular points of excellence or advancement 

 which in the opinion of the judge entitled 

 it to an award." 



Some standard of excellence in the mind 

 of the judge was therefore necessary as a 

 basis. Every exhibit competed with that 

 standard. That being the case, it was very 

 easy for one State to receive more awards 

 than another, simply for the reason that it 

 had a larger number of exhibitors, without 

 the exhibits themselves being better indi- 

 vidually. 



If the quality were equal, the one having 

 the greatest number of individual exhibit- 

 ors would appear to carry off the palm, 

 when it fact it would not be the case. For 

 instance, suppose Ontario had 28 individual 

 entries of extracted honey, and Michigan 

 5 — if Ontario received 6 awards and Michi- 

 gan 2, no one could say that therefore Can- 

 ada honey is superior to Michigan. It 

 ■rniylit mean that Ontario had more money 

 to spend on the exhibit of honey than Mich- 

 igan, and that her Superintendent induced 

 more individuals to contribute. Or, it 

 might mean that the individual bee-keepers 

 of Ontario took a little more interest in 

 maintaining the honor of their Province 

 than the Michiganders did of their State. 



But 1 don't know that these comparisons 

 are to the edification of any one, and now 

 that the "war is over," let us bury the 

 tomahawk and cultivate the arts of peace, 

 and get ready for the next Columbian Ex- 

 hibition. 



Amei'ica (including Canada) is a vast 

 country, great in resources and in produc- 

 tions. No one Province or State can say, 

 " we are the people and possess all the good 

 things." 



The fact is, that in the matter of honey 

 there is such a vast territory that produces 

 a superior article, that it is hard to say 

 which locality is best. In my examinations 

 I found it was confined to no one State or 

 territory. 



Ontario produces splendid honey, but her 

 great secret of success is that she produces 

 good bee-keepers — men who know how to pro- 



