American Bee Journal 



DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO BEE CULTURE. 



Vol. X. 



CHICAGO, JUNE, 1874. 



No. 6. 



Cirmspi^ttdttt^, 



Correspondents should write only on one side of 

 the sheet. Their best thoughts and practical ideas are 

 always welcome ; no matter how rough, we will cheer- 

 fully '■ lix them up." 



For the American Bee Journal. 



Adair Talks About Novice. 



Mk. Editor : — When the New Idea Hive 

 and theory was first made public, Mr. Root 

 became terribly excited over it, and time af- 

 ter time, in your columns, warned bee- 

 keepers against it, as he does against every- 

 thing he knows nothing about. Why, sir, 

 he skinned Gallup and me over and over. 

 We told him then, that the two-story Sim- 

 plicity Hive had so completely filled his 

 brain, that he had no room for anything 

 else. The hive has noAv been tested for 

 three seasons, and everything claimed for 

 it has been established as true, by the best 

 apiculturists in all parts of the country. 



Root is too much of a Yankee, not to see 

 how the thing is going, and consequently 

 we now find him recommending, manufac- 

 turing and selling the much-abused "New 

 Idea." He has even gone so far as to 

 adopt the "Adair" size of frame, and now 

 charges an extra price for an extractor that 

 fits any other. We are glad to see this, but 

 Ave must say that he submits with a bad 

 grace. As long as he fought it, he never 

 once thought that the Idea was old. If it 

 turned out to be a failure, he was willing 

 to saddle the whole disgrace on me and 

 Gallup, who he charged were trying to puz- 

 zle and befog the " ignorant " bee-keepers. 

 But as soon as it turns out successfully, he 

 joins in with others. See American Bee 

 JouRNWL for May, 1874, where he admits 

 that " the testimony is strongly in favor of 

 those over the two-story hives " but is un- 

 generous enough to suggest that it is no 

 "New Idea" at all. He says, "Double 

 width hives were used in our country be- 

 fore this work (Progressive Bee Culture) 

 was published, for he had mentioned in 

 public, making hives four or more feet 

 long." I did mention it at the first Indian- 

 apolis convention in 1870, and had a hive 



there on exhibition. I had then used it 

 several years investigating its practical 

 workings. In the same article he insists 

 again that " The ' New Idea' was, if it is 

 not now, set forth as a patent hive," as if 

 that was an objection to it. But why does 

 he so often repeat what is not so ? I have 

 repeatedly stated in answer to him, and 

 others, that I never asserted a patent on it. 

 He refers the reader to inside of the first 

 cover of "Progressive Bee Culture," where 

 he says, " His price then given for a Lang 

 stroth hive, fitted up on the ' New Idea ' 

 plan ^oith right to use is ten dollars." Now 

 nothing of the sort is to be found there nor 

 in a7iy other place. The proposition made 

 on the cover of " Progressive Bee Culture," 

 is just the reverse of what he states, and is 

 as follows : 



"/w order to enable all to secure the bene- 

 fits of tJie ' New Idea ' Hive, I will furnish 

 them with samples of Langstroth hives or 

 those of similar construction, arranged for 

 frames in the centre, and the ends filled 

 out with my section honey boxes, with a 

 right to use the honey boxes on any hive, 

 for $10.00, etc." 



I sometimes think, Mr. Editor, that I 

 will quit writing about bees, for I must be 

 incompetent to make myself understood. 

 It is annoying in the extreme, to have 

 what I consider the plainest sentence I can 

 frame, perverted into just the opposite. 

 Another is to be found in the same article 

 of Root's, where he says I "condemn the 

 Extractor." I have never done so, but 

 merely stated that its value is overestimated 

 by such enthusiasts as Mr. Root. / have 

 never condemned the Melextractor . On the 

 contrary, have always advised every one 

 keeping bees, to use it. It is indispensa- 

 ble to successful bee-keeping. But if I find 

 that I can make box or comb honey more 

 profitable than extracted, can I not have 

 the privilege of saying so without subject- 

 ing myself to such unfounded charges ? If 

 I find that the clipping of the wings of the 

 queen is injurious, and attempt to show on 

 physiological grounds recognized by the 

 most eminent naturalists, why must I sub- 

 ject myself to being called hard names, and 

 ridiculed by men whose experience has not 

 been such as to enable them to detect the 

 damage and cruelty of the mutilation ? and 



