1897. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



51 



the name of honey has lowered the price of honey at least one 

 cent per pound ? I believe I put it mildly when I say one cent. 

 Then at this rate, the bee-keeper who produces 10,000 pounds 

 of honey annually is being robbed of $100 a year. The dam- 

 age to all bee-keepers figures at millions. And in this reckon- 

 ing, nothing is said of the damage to the public health, which 

 Is undoubtedly far greater than the loss that we sustain. 



Years ago, a war was begun, by bee-keepers, against adul- 

 teration. In 1878 and 1879 a large number of petitions 

 were sent to Congress by the bee-keepers, but to no avail. Yet 

 It somewhat slackened the adulteration. To day it is worse 

 than ever. Yet, we can stop it, for it is against justice. All 

 it needs is a sutJicient effort. 



We must, then, unite our efforts and construct a Bee- 

 Keepers' Union fifty times as strong and as far reaching as 

 what we have at present. Nothing need detain us. We have 

 good men, plenty of them, who will do what we Want, if we 

 only give them the proper backing, both morally and financi- 

 ally. 



Bee-keepers as a class are steady men. They are nearly 

 all fairly well ediicated, most of them land-owners, and there 

 are but very few unreliable men among them. Look about you, 

 in all trades and professions, and see if you cannot make as 

 respectable and reliable a gathering as any trade or profes- 

 sion. 



I say, therefore, that we have the stuff, in our ranks, to 

 form a Union that can command its place, and that can dic- 

 tate to those who try to swindle us, directly or indirectly. All 

 we need to do, is to convince ourselves that union is needed 

 not only among the hundreds, but among the thousands of us. 



Therefore, I beg you all to unite as one man on the deci- 

 sion of the majority. Give the " Union,"' whatever be its 

 name, the backing of your vote and of your name. Consider 

 that morally and financially it can do you more good, a hun- 

 dred fold, than it will cost you. Let us all unite for the com- 

 mon good, and crush the hydra of houey-adulteration. 



Hancock Co., 111. 



The Question of Amalgamatioti Considered. 



BY PROF. A. J. COOK. 



I regret exceedingly that there seems to be so much feel- 

 ing on the matter of uniting the National Bee-Keepers' Union 

 and the North American Bee-Keepers' Association. It seems 

 to me exceedingly important that all bee-keepers should hold 

 together and not let anything separate them. I have my own 

 notions regarding the wisdom of this union which I will pro- 

 ceed to give ; but in case a majority of bee-keepers think 

 otherwise, I should at once fling my own opinion to the wind 

 and heartily co-operate with those who think differently. 



It seems to me that the North American and the National 

 Union have entirely different purposes, and I can see no spe- 

 cial reason why they should be united 1 think a good many 

 people have a wrong view of the North American. They 

 notice each year the comparatively small attendance which is 

 for the main part wholly local, and they conclude — very un- 

 wisely, I think — that the Association is of small account. Our 

 country is so immensely large, times of late so hard, and 

 traveling so expensive, that it is impossible for any consider- 

 able number to attend such conventious where they are Na- 

 tional ; especially when devoted to any industry with such 

 limited profits as those of bee-keeping. We may then rest 

 assured that the meetings of the North American Association 

 can be, will ever be, only of limited attendance. But are 

 these meetings of small value ? I have attended quite a large 

 number in as many as seven or eight States, and I have 

 always regarded these, as well as the many others that I 

 have been unable to attend, as of grsat importance. In all 

 these meetings there is always a sprinkling of our ablest bee- 

 keepers from widely-scattered sections. Besides these, there 

 is always a large attendance from the immediate locality of 

 the meeting. We were so fortunate in Michigan as to have 

 one of these meetings held in Detroit. We had at that meet- 

 ing some of the best bee-keepers of Ontario, New York, Ohio, 

 Indiana, Illinois, and some even from States much farther 

 away, while the local attendance from Michigan was large. It 

 goes without saying, that such a meeting will give a great 

 impetus to bee-culture, not only in the immediate region, but 

 throughout our country. We are always sure to get many 

 new ideas, often from experts in the immediate localities 

 which are often brought out prominently for the first time by 

 such meetings. The editors are always at hand, and whatever 

 is new and valuable, is sure of wide distribution. Thus I 

 have never felt that such meetings lackt in importance or value, 

 and have always regretted to read or bear them referred to in 

 a slighting manner. I believe that we can hardly over-esti- 



mate the value of these me3tings, if rightly conducted. I 

 have had an exceedingly wide experience in connection with 

 such gatherings, in both official and non-of5icial positions. 



I would have at such meetings all important subjects in- 

 troduced by a brief essay never more than 20 minutes long — 

 I would prefer ten — to be followed by a general discussion. I 

 do not believe — and I have had wide observation — that this 

 plan can be changed without detriment. It is not necessary 

 that the person who writes the introductory address shall be 

 present. Thus we may have representation from our ablest 

 men, and, if desired, from every Slate. This makes such 

 meetings anything but local, and I see no reason to be dis- 

 couraged even if there are not more than 50 or 75 in attend- 

 ance. I had the privilege of attending the Boston Society of 

 Natural History for a considerable time, at two different 

 periods. That Society has had a wonderful influence in devel- 

 oping science and quickening scientific research. Yet very 

 frequently there have not been more than 15 or 20 in attend- 

 ance at a meeting. No scientist would think of saying that 

 those meetings were unimportant, or that that Society was 

 a played-out institution. 



Thus much for the North American Bee-Keepers' Associa- 

 tion. 



The National Bee-Keepers' Union, on the other hand, has 

 an entirely different mission, which It has fulfilled with re- 

 markable success. This is none other than to look after the 

 interest of its members, and to see that they are not interfered 

 with because of prejudice or ill-will. I do not see how any one 

 can complain of the work of the Union. It started out with 

 a prescribed purpose, and it has fulfilled such purpose 

 promptly and with efficiency. Because of its work, already 

 so well done, it seems to me now it may well have its scope 

 broadened. I have long thought that it might well take up 

 the matter of adulteration, and I see no reason why it should 

 not also give aid in the way of marketing honey. If these 

 two objects were added to its work and mission, I do not see 

 how any of its members could reasonably complain regarding it. 



When the matter of amalgamation was first broacht, I was 

 quite favorable to it ; perhaps more than anything else be- 

 cause so many of my good friends, in whose judgment I re- 

 lied, were favorable. I find, however, that there are a good 

 many members of the Union who are not in accord with such 

 action. It has seemed to me all along that this alone should 

 prevent any change. As an organization it was formed with 

 a specific purpose. Many members joined it, paid dues, and 

 as a result quite a fund is gathered. It seems to me that in 

 this case we have no right to make any change, except those 

 who have given to this fund are nearly, or quite unanimous, 

 in the matter. I canot see how either the North American or 

 yet the Bee-Keepers' Union are to be materially aided by a 

 union of the two. Their purposes are entirely distinct, and 

 while each may aid the other, and will certainly if successful, 

 I do not see how each depends at all upon the other, or why 

 they should be united. The Union has certainly done splen- 

 did work — has never been f,ound napping; and so I can see no 

 reason to advocate any change in its work and management, 

 except to broaden its purpose as indicated above. It is cer- 

 tainly true that a large increase of numbers would give more 

 funds, more influence, more power. But so long as we have 

 several hundred dollars in the treasury, I do not see why such 

 an argument should have very great weight. I fully believe 

 that in case more funds are needed, and a greater constituency 

 desirable, the same will be immediately forthcoming. Surely, 

 with such a brilliant record behind it, and such ample fruits, 

 we cannot expect any lack of patronage. 



From the above considerations I have concluded that the 

 time is not yet ripe for amalgamation. I do believe, however, 

 that we may well amend our Constitution, if it is necessary, 

 so as to take up the other two matters of adulteration and 

 marketing. 



There is another question that seems to be causing some 

 discussion and difference. I refer to the matter of General 

 Manager. I have always been a hearty advocate of the doc- 

 trine of civil service reform. This doctrine demands the con- 

 tinuance of a person in office— if I rightly understand it— as 

 long as he proves efficient. I see, therefore, no reason why 

 our present able Manager should be supersedad. Were he to 

 be superseded, I certainly should give my vote and influence 

 in favor of Dr. C. C. Miller. I doubt if a better man for the 

 position could be found if we searcht the world over. lam 

 fully mindful of the objection made to Mr. Newman— that his 

 present home in California places him at a long distance from 

 all eastern bee-keepers ; and yet, our telegraph and railroad 

 facilities so greatly bridge this distance that I do not feel that 

 the argument is a very Important one. The fact, too, that the 

 majority of those in the Union are citizens of California; the 

 fact of California's exceeding importance as a bee-keeping 



