THE BEE-KESPERS' REVIEW. 



301 



has not happened again, though a simu- 

 lar opportunity offered. 



A discussion on disturbance of bees in 

 winter in the Review, and one on eight 

 and ten-frame hives in Gleanings, were 

 closed, because even new facts would add 

 nothing to the principles brought out. 

 This I think was fair, so far as that reason 

 was concerned. 



Another discussion in the American Bee 

 journal, on the first introduction of the 

 Italian bee, was severely let alone through 

 many dreary wastes of unprofitable wrang- 

 ling. At last the editor ventured to sum- 

 marize one of the articles, instead of giv- 

 ing it entire. I do not remember the 

 outcome. Had both disputants first argu- 

 ed for the editor's eye alone, the final re- 

 sult — if there was any — might have been 

 given in one-tenth the space either in the 

 editor's words or their own. In this case 

 the editor seemed to realize that some 

 things needed to be said, but did not 

 know how to manage the undue length 

 of the discussion until too late. The ex- 

 perience seems to have discouraged him ; 

 for in subsequent cases he has gone back 

 to the old autocratic method, regardless 

 of a trifling matter like fairness — it saves 

 so much fuss. (A laj-man can not see 

 how the energy expended could be much 

 more than that of printing the first two 

 articles in a discussion. ) 



The Canadian discussion of two years 

 ago in the Review was also tedious and 

 mostly unprofitable. But in view of 

 some of the statements made, one could 

 not but feel that it would be a shame not 

 to allow a reply. The editor did not 

 make himself responsible for any injus- 

 tice by meddling, and, so far, is to be 

 commended. But here, also, condensa- 

 tion would have been welcomed. Dr. 

 Miller, however, advised him to choke 

 it off entirely — thus putting himself on 

 record as a would-be autocratic editor. 



In the evolutionary discussion in which 

 I was engaged, a slight variation was 

 adopted. A proof of the second article 

 of Mr. Doolittle's principal opponent was 

 printed, after a long delay, and sent to 



Mr. Doolittle, who thus understopd, with- 

 out doubt, that he was" to have the last 

 word in the discussion. He accordingly 

 improved the opportunity to the full, 

 assuming an air of injured innocence, 

 accusing his opponents of abuse, of set- 

 ting up a straw man, and of giving him 

 no liberty to think as he pleased, while 

 he did them; pure assertions, every one 

 of them; though in his warmth he seems 

 to have been sincere in making them; 

 while the editor was saying, in effect, 

 "See how fair I am!" 



In the discussion on facing comb hon- 

 ey, in Gleanings, in which I was also en- 

 gaged, viitually the same plan was adopt- 

 ed. Mr. Doolittle was again invited to 

 say the last word; and promptly resorted 

 to misrepresentation, saying I recom- 

 mended putting the worst outside. In 

 this case a novel reason was given for 

 closing the discussion, viz., that if not, 

 Mr. Doolittle's logic might be attacked! 

 Since when is a man's logic so sacred ? 



A discussion on a bounty on honey in 

 Gleanings was also closed when it tend- 

 ed to become political. Now politics is 

 a subject that nearly everyone thinks he 

 knows all about, but really knows next 

 to nothing; and "practical" men are as 

 wild theorizers as any one on this sub- 

 ject; so that it, if anything, ought to be 

 discouraged in bee journals. But even 

 this line of discussion is favored lately 

 by editor Hill, according to "Boiler." 

 That is, reason and judgement, not cast- 

 iron rules, must determine the subjects 

 of discussion. 



In each of the foregoing cases (all I re- 

 member) we may see that except pos.sibly 

 the last one, each subject, in itself, was 

 worthy of more or less discussion; but 

 that in eight of the ten the management 

 of the discussions was crude and unsat- 

 isfactory, and, as a precedent, did harm 

 as well as good — when it did do good. 

 Pyither bad motives were imputed, which 

 an editor has no more right than any 

 other man to either do, or connive at, 

 without allowing defense; or the undue 

 length of the arguments took up space 



