THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



77 



T htivc stated. AH Kiicii pix)tests that I have 

 soon, so far, arc markod by passion, bias, and 

 personality, rather than dispassionate argu- 

 ment or pi'osentation of facts. 



Mr. K's isohited e.\perinient is interesting, 

 .«o far as it goes; but " Oiiic swallow don't 

 make a summer,^' and one experiment can- 

 not negative accumulated evidence. All the 

 hubbub in the world, from prejudiced bee- 

 keepers, cannot change facts that have been 

 witnessed by hundreds of others, as well as 

 myself. Bee-keepers may do their best to 

 shear the fact of its importancio, but all the 

 most winning sophistry will not annihilate it. 

 They may observe and cover it with the drift 

 of adverse opinion, but, like the bowlder, it 

 will remain unchanged by the superincum- 

 bent deposit, and stand forth boldly, long 

 after the evanescent and incoherent sur- 

 roundings have beeu washed away by the 

 stream of truth. I am as contident that bees 

 at times cut the skin of tender fruit, as I am 

 that they cut their comb or the caps of their 

 cells; and as Mr. K. docs not seem to have 

 much confidence in the reliability of my own 

 observations, I will say that he will not only 

 find proof of the direct injury which bees do 

 fruit in the reports of the Department of Ag- 

 riculture, but in the reports of the difterent 

 State Horticultural Societies, and in the col- 

 \imns of industrial journals. 



To the last assertion made by Mr. K., I 

 was myself a successful bee-keeper for over 

 three years ; and not one bee-keeper of large 

 experience and reputation, has undertaken to 

 controvert the facts I have stated. On the 

 contrary, Mr. L. T. Waite, of St. Louis, Mo., 

 and Mr. L. C. Francis, of Springlield, 111., 

 "well-known as successful and intelligent 

 apiarians, have both admitted the truth of 

 Tvhat I wrote; and "Ella," the bee-corres- 

 pondent of The Chicago Tribune^ whom I 

 know to have large experience, in a recent 

 discussion of the question, says: "What- 

 ever our opinions may be, they must at least 

 yield to stubborn facts, and, in case 

 ■such facts, are presented to a court 

 of justice, there can be little doubt 

 that the bees will be convicted. " A whole 

 volume might be filled with evidence in sup- 

 port of my position, from reliable observers; 

 but, not to waste more time, let me say to 

 Mr. K., as to another article in Tfie, Rural 

 Neic-Torker [in answer to another corres- 

 pondent of the Journal, viz : Chas. D. Hib- 

 bard, who also has something to say against 

 "this saiuent Prof. Riley"— C. V.'li.], that 

 " in advising extreme measures in an extreme 

 case, I by no means make general war upon 

 bees : for I have too long communed with 

 these busy little insects, not to have an ad- 

 miration for them as great, at leastj as that 

 professed by some of their more noisy 

 champions. 



"If, in exceptional seasons, when no flowers 

 otter their coveted sweets, these bee-keepers 

 who have largo ai)iaries, witli fruit-growers 

 for neighbors, would proi)erly feed their 

 bees, said neighbor would have little cause to 

 complain. " Mr. L. B. Ilogue, of ]>elmont 

 Co., Ohio, in The Tribune of July 2;3d, last, 

 suggests as a remedy for the dilHculties which 

 fruit-growers experience from the bees of 

 negligent and cari'less neighbors, that, in- 

 stead of fly poison or the planting of Asclep- 

 ias, a few acres of catnip [Nepeta) be planted 

 for bee-food — an excellent suggestion, pro- 

 viding it is made to the bee proprietor, and 

 not to the fruit-grower; for the latter must not 

 bo expected to take care of the former's 

 property. 



REPLY BY MR. KRUSCHIvE. 



Since the above was in type we have 

 received the following reply from Mr. 

 Kruschke : 



In reply to Prof. Riley, Mr. Editor, 1 

 would remark that he says that he expects 

 bee-keepers will be down on him. AVell, I 

 would like to know how many horticulturists 

 have thanked him. 



Not only bee-keepers are down on him, 

 but all peace and justice loving persons must 

 criticise him, for any such course as he ad- 

 vises would bring enmity and discord among 

 neighbors, even if bees were guilty of punct- 

 uring fruit. It would be no more just to 

 kill bees than it would be to kill cattle if they 

 break into another man's enclosure. 



He compares my isolated experiment with 

 " one swallow," etc.; but the Prof, has not 

 even a single " swallow " to otter in his argu- 

 ment, and says one experiment cannot nega- 

 tive accumulated evidence. But I say a sin- 

 gle demonstrated fact is worth more than 

 volumes of theory to the contrary ; and theory 

 is all the evidence he has to otter. When 

 Galileo, by the means of his telescope, dem- 

 onstrated to the world that the earth moves 

 around the sun, his single iso^a^frZ experiment 

 upset all the volumes of theory accumulated 

 on that subject. When Columbus sailed 

 westward, and found land beyond the waters, 

 his demonstration negatived all theory to the 

 contrary. 



So I, with a single experiment, overthrow 

 all presumptive evidence to the contrary. 

 For I have not, and do not presume the Prof. 

 has, heai'd of or seen a like experiment prov- 

 ing the contrary. He calls my experiment 

 isolated. I would like to know on Avliat the 

 Prof, bases his ro/ifdence concerning the 

 fruit-destroying propensities of bees V Seeing 

 bees on fruit is not proof that they puncture 

 it. The question to be answered is simply 

 this : Has he seen bees in the act of cutting 

 the skin of the fruit V If he cannot ansvver 

 affirmatively, all his gushing about a bowld- 



