1897. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



243 



given in the dictionary as synonymous, but for some reason I 

 have come to loolt upon alliance as beiuR a stronger word liian 

 league. If the ladies will excuse me, and not misunderstand 

 me — for I believe in woman's rights — I will say that league 

 strikes mo as a feminine word, and alliance as masculine. 

 " League" is strong on the moral side, and "Alliance" sug- 

 gests more physical power. We talk of the " allied powers" 

 when nations unite to defend their rights. 



It seems to me that " leagued powers " would sound a lit- 

 tle tame ; but Epworth League for moral and spiritual work 

 sounds all right. These societies seem to me to have given 

 " league " a special and specific meaning not recognized by 

 the dictionaries, and I would prefer not to belittle the word by 

 using it in any other connection. However, this is only a 

 whim of my own, and is not worth the wasting of very much 

 time. 



I do not feel this way about the necessity for a change of 

 name on the part of the United States Bee-Keepers' Union. Of 

 course, no society has a " patent" on the word " Union," but 

 the use of it by the new society, if the old one is to continue in 

 the field, is sure to create confusion, if it Is not the cause of 

 unnecessary hard feelings. Take as an illustration the refer- 

 ences to the Bee-Keepers' Union which were found in the same 

 number of the Bee Journal which contained the editorial, and 

 which Union is meant ? Do you not see that this question 

 would constantly arise unless one, in speaking of the work of 

 the Union, should modify the expression by saying '• old," or 

 " new," as the case might be? A name is arbitrary and is 

 given to designate a personality, to pointout an individual per- 

 son or organism, as separate and distinct from all others. 

 Then why designate two children in the family by the same 

 name, when the dictionary is full of names? Most people pre- 

 fer to name their children so that when John is called, not 

 more than one will be expected to answer. 



To change the figure, if I were hunting for land, and 

 plenty could be had for the taking, I should avoid that which 

 was claimed by others, even tho I knew their claim was not 

 good, if Icould find other land which would answer my pur- 

 pose just as well. This is my position with regard to the name 

 " Union," and in the interest of harmony and good feeling, 

 and to avoid confusion, or the necessity for an explanation 

 every time there was a reference made to the work of either 

 of the societies, I suggested the change. 1 think yet that the 

 point is well taken, and that there is no necessity for waiting 

 until we meet at Buffalo to make the change, if all the mem- 

 bers of the United States Bee-Keepers' Union will agree to the 

 change. I, for one, will agree to any name which will over- 

 come the difficulties suggested above. 



Buchanan Co., Mo. 



[All right, Mr. Abbott, "Alliance" will suit us very well. 

 Or, it might be called, " United States Bee-Keepers' Associa- 

 tion." That was the name we suggested in the sample con- 

 stitution we got up and publisht just before the Lincoln con- 

 vention. 



Shall it be "League," "Alliance," or "Association?" 

 Shall a vote be taken at once to decide it? Let as many mem- 

 bers as favor a change of name, write to the Secretary (Dr. A. 

 B. Mason, Sta. B., Toledo, Ohio), suggesting such vote. — Ed.] 



The Williams Automatic Hoaey-Extractor. 



BY VAN ALLEN A WILLIAMS. 



Editor York : — With your permission we wish to say a 

 few words about the "Williams Automatic Honey-Extractor." 



It seems some one has written The A. I. Root Company 

 that their four and six frame honey-extractors were an 

 Infringement on the Williams. The fact Is, If the Root Com- 

 pany have the drawings and description sent them by Mr. 

 Williams, shortly after his patent was issued, they know as 

 much about the principle covered by the Williams' patent as 

 any of their customers. Editor Root has written us asking 

 for price-list and a statement in regard to claim of infringe- 

 ment. At present we do not care to make any positive state- 

 ment in regard to the matter, but we wish to place the facts 

 before the bee-keepers of this country, and let them judge 

 whether the Cowan four and six frame extractors are an 

 Infringement on the Williams or not. We are willing to put 

 up with their decision for the present, at least. 



We would like every bee-keeper in this country to com- 

 pare the illustrations of the reel of the four and six frame 

 Cowan, with those of the Williams, and see how very near 

 they are alike in construction. Each has the circles for the 



comb-baskets to rest against when in motion ; each has the 

 uprights to hold the circles in plai'.c; each has cross-arms to 

 tiie bottom of the reel, with center shaft passing through the 

 reel ; by putting the reversing gear at the bottom of the reel 

 in the Cowan, it was necessary, of course, to have an arm ex- 

 tending from the shaft to each comb-basket, which is an ob- 

 jectionable feature in a honey-extractor. The Williams has a 

 single arm extending across the tup of the reel, thus leaving 

 one-half of the extractor free frotn any obstruction to the easy 

 and rapid handling of combs, but while the reversing arrange- 

 ment of the Williams is at thi! top of the reel, where is no 

 possibility of it ever getting daubrd with honey, that of the 

 Cowan is at the bottom of the reel where it is very liable to 

 get daubed with honey. But while one is at the top of the 

 reel and the other at the bottom, the principle of reversing is 

 the same, that is, that of reversing from tlie outside. The 

 Stanley extractor reverst from the inside ; and it was the- 

 principle of reversing from the outside, with a gear attacht to 

 the comb-basket, on which Mr. Williams applied for and ob- 

 tained his patent. 



The facts in the case are these : Mr. Williams' patent 

 was issued Nov. 15, 1892. Some time after that he wrote 

 Mr. Root and sent the Patent Ollice drawings, and drawings 

 of his own, with a description, and askt Mr. Root if he would 

 put up one sample machine for him, and what he would 

 charge for doing the work. Mr. Root declined to do the work, 

 and wrote Mr. Williams a very discouraging letter — in fact, 

 he wrote several such letters, and carried the discouraging 

 feature in them to such an extent that it was corn-rented upoQ 

 by Mr. Williams and his friends at the time, as very peculiar, 

 that Mr. Root should write him such letters, and try to dis- 

 courage him about his extractor unless he (Mr. Root) had 

 some object in so doing. Bear in mind this took place the 

 forepart of January, 1893. 



Previous to this time, Mr. Root had always maintained 

 that the two-frame extractor was large enough for all practical 

 purposes, and that those having out-apiaries should have a 

 machine in each yard. But during the winter of 1893, a 

 sudden change took place in Mr. Root's mind in regard to ex- 

 tractors, for towards spring he came out with his four and six 

 frame Cowan, saying "they were Just what extensive bee- 

 keepers needed." Mr. Williams said there was a demand for 

 just such an extractor as his, and wrote Mr. Root that there 

 was. Altho the Roots made their boast in Gleanings that 

 they were the leading manufacturers of bee-keepers' supplies, 

 and that they "set the pace and led in the race," somehow or 

 other they had failed to find out that there was a demand for a 

 larger and better honey-extractor than had ever been put on 

 the market, till after Mr. Williams sent them the drawings 

 and description of his invention ! 



It was during March, 1893 — some two months or more 

 after Mr. Williams sent him the drawings and description of 

 his extractor — that Mr. Root got out his first four and six 

 frame Cowans, and sent out cuts of them to his customers. 

 Mr. Williams sent some of those cuts to his patent attorney 

 (Mr. Hough) at Washington, D. C, asking him if the Cowan 

 extractors, as shown in the cuts, were not an infringement on 

 his patent, as they had the gear attacht to the comb-baskets 

 with which to reverse, which was the essentiat port of his in- 

 vention. The attorney had cuts of both machines, and the 

 model of the Williams, and in his reply he said he had made a 

 careful examination, and they were undoubtedly an infringe- 

 ment, for his (Williams') patent covered the principle of re- 

 versing the baskets with a gear, and it made no difference 

 whether it was applied at the bottom or top of the reel, the 

 principle of reversing was the same, and was covered by his 

 patent. Crawford Co., Wis. 



[We sent an advance proof of the above article to The A. 

 I. Root Co., so that their reply, if they desired to make any, 

 might appear in connection with it. Here is what they have 

 to say : — Editor. 1 



THE COWAN FOUR-FRAME F.XTRACTOR NOT AN INFRINGEMENT. 



As the Editor has kindly sent us a proof of the article by 

 Van Allen & Williams, wo hasten to reply so that both may- 

 appear in the same number. 



Two or three months ago one of our customers wrote as 

 that Van Allen it Williams claimed that our four-frame ma- 

 chine was an infringement upon their patent, and cautioned 

 him against purchasing from us. We were promptly notified 

 by the parties, and we immediately began an investigation, 

 because this was the first intimation that we had had of the 

 matter. We secured a copy of the patent ; and after readlnff 

 the claims through very carefully we were surprised that any 

 one should say that our Cowan was an Infringement. There 



