THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



335 



I have heard him say, "when I make an 

 experiment I make it upon a large enough 

 scale to give it some value." There are 

 two sides to this question, as there are to 

 most questions. Some facts can be de- 

 termined by small experiments; others 

 need large experiments upon a large 

 scale; and several times repeated, at that. 

 The point I would make is this: It is not 

 advisable to adopt a new plan or inven- 

 tion, about which there is any doubt, up- 

 on a larger scale than that upon which 

 you can afford to meet with failure. 



The Ontario Bee-Keeper's Associ- 

 ation will hold its annual meeting in 

 Guelph, Dec. 6, 7 and 8. The Guelph 

 Fat Stock Show and the Guelph Pet 

 Stock Show and the Experimental Union 

 will all meet at the same time in Guelph. 

 Owing to these attractions, a large meet- 

 ing is expected, and a cordial invitation 

 is extended to all bee-keepers to attend. 

 The editor of the Review accepts the in- 

 vitation and will try and be there. 



Contact with our fellow mortals has a 

 wonderfully brightening effect upon our 

 minds. To visit those in a business like 

 our own helps us more than we would 

 have dreamed possible. Mr. H. R. 

 Boardman of Ohio had no honey crop 

 last season, the fi'-st time he has failed in 

 years, and he took a trip up here in Mich- 

 igan to see if he could learn something 

 to his advantage. At the end of an ac- 

 count of this trip, given in Gleanings, 

 the editor says: 



"There is nothing, I think, that so 

 broadens the mind of a bee-keeper as to 

 go out among his fellows. I have learn- 

 ed more by coming in contact with bee- 

 keepers, and seeing and comparing their 

 ways and methods for a few hours, than 

 I have learned in months of time among 

 our own bees." 



One thing that has helped greatly in 

 making Gleanings the succes that it is, 

 is that its editors have made frequent 

 and extensive trips among bee-keepers. 

 Even attending a bee convention is a 



great help. I have often noticed how 

 some journal has brightened up for an 

 issue or two after its editor has attended 

 a good convention. 



••»jr«*<^m«Xir« 



USING THE BLUE PENCIL. 

 From two or three sources there has 

 been urged upon me the freer use of the 

 blue pencil — that is, the marking out in 

 correspondence of matter that I think 

 ought not to appear. Some, if in the 

 editorial chair, would even go so far as to 

 mark out matter with which they did not 

 agree. If a man is to do this he might as 

 well dispense with correspondents, and 

 let his paper be all editorial. If there is 

 one thing in which I take a pride it is the 

 fact that the columns of the Review are 

 always open for every one to express their 

 views freely, so long as respectable lan- 

 gu'age is used. Except in correcting gram- 

 matical errors, the blue pencil is seldom 

 used. I always like to let a man's arti- 

 cle go in exactly as he has written it. To 

 mark out this, and mark out that, seems, 

 to me, a sort of reflection upon the writer. 

 It seems like saying "You don't know 

 what you ought to say." Before taking 

 such a liberty I almost always write to 

 my correspondent and suggest certain 

 changes, giving my reasons. If he then 

 sees the matter as I do, well and good. 



*»u«»»u»u»u» 



to what EXTENT SHALL THEORIZING 

 BE ALLOWED? 



When I began publishing the Review I 

 had some very definite ideas as to how it 

 should be conducted; in fact, I believe I 

 printed a sort of platform upon which the 

 Review was to be built. I am still in- 

 clined to follow the rules that I then laid 

 down; or, to be more exact, I still think 

 they are pretty good rules; but eleven 

 years of experience as an editor have 

 taught me the folly of being too closely 

 bound by rules. One of those rules was 

 "not to waste space in the discussion of 

 fine-spun theories that may be interesting 

 but have no practical bearing upon the 



