244 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Apr. 22, 



Is only one claim, and that a combination claim, to the 

 Williams patent, and It reads as follows : 



" In a centrifugal honey-extractor the combination, with the 

 comb-holder frame comprising two or more bars at its lower end, 

 a ring uniting the same upright bars, and a ring uniting them at 

 their upper ends, of comb-holders pivoted to said frame at points 

 midway between the upright bars, a gear-segment carried by the 

 pivot of each holder at its upper end, a ring having a rack for each 

 segment, and a shaft carrying said ring, and journaled in said 

 frame at its lower end, substantially as shown and described, and 

 for the purpose specified." 



It will be seen by those who are familiar with the princi- 

 ples of both machines that our extractor cannot by any man- 

 ner of means be considered as an infringement. In the first 

 place, the Patent Ollice, knowing that the sprocket-wheel- 

 and-chain device for reversing four-frame extractors was very 

 old, limited Mr. Williams to a very narrow combination claim. 

 It is a well-known fact In patent law, in a combination claim, 

 that every element is supposed to be necessary for its en- 

 tirety. If, for example, Mr. A should use in a machine five 

 of the six tXemenls ai a claim of any patented article, and 

 should omit the sixth, he would not be infringing. This fact 

 has been decided over and over again, until there can be no 

 question about it. But where there are several claims to a 

 patent, and one of the claims is infringed upon, then there is 

 cause for action. As I pointed out, the Van Allen it Williams 

 patent has o?ily one ciaim, three elements of which we have 

 not used, do not use, and never expect to use. The Williams 

 extractor is advertised as an automatic reversing mai-hine, the 

 reversing being effected by the reversal of the crank motion. 

 Our four,-frame Cowans are not automatic, and never have 

 been, the baskets being reverst with one hand while the other 

 turns the crank. We believe that reversing by our plan is 

 much more rapidly effected, because the machine does not 

 have to be even stopt. 



Moreover, it will be noticed that the reversing mechanism 

 in the above claim is limited to the top, notwithstanding that 

 Van Allen & Williams state that their patent covers either 

 the top or bottom position. Then, again, the claim limits 

 them to a gear and rack, while we use a sprocket-wheel and 

 chain. We admit that there are points of similarity, jnst as 

 we admit there are points of similarity between a buggy and 

 a lumber wagon ; but between our machine and the Van Allen 

 & Williams there are vital and practical differences. It was 

 Aspinwall & Treadwell who, in 18>S7, or thereabout, adver- 

 tised and sold reversible extractors, making use of a sprocket- 

 wheel and chain. Mr. H. Holden, of Port Dover, Out., used 

 this kind of extractor even before that. The sprocket-wheel- 

 and-chain feature, as the Patent Office records show, is an old 

 feature ; and for Van Allen & Williams, or their attorney, to 

 claim that our Cowan is an infrineejuent is a little amusing 

 in view of the printed matter showing that these ideas are 

 very old. A similar arrangement was sent out by a Mr. 

 Squire, in 1884 or 1885, of Santa Barbara, Cal. Reference 

 to this machine is made on page 841 of Gleanings in Bee-Cul- 

 ture for 1889. We have other citations more important yet, 

 but withhold them for the present. 



With all due respect to the opinion of Attorney Hough, it 

 will be seen that he saw only a cut of our extractors. He 

 ought to know, as well as Van Allen & Williams, that a cut 

 will give a very imperfect idea of the actual principles and 

 workings of a machiue. From the cut it might appear that 

 our extractor was automatic in its reversing; but, as 1 have 

 already pointed out, it is not automatic, and we defy any one 

 to find any of our machines on the market that are automatic. 



Another point should be noted is this : That attorneys 

 do not usually discourage litigation. It is not their business 

 to do so ; and one will have to make an allowance for an opin- 

 ion that is not altogether ex parte. 



Viin Allen & Williams state that Mr. Williams sent us a 

 copy of the patent after it had been issued. Such a copy 

 may have been sent, but we do not remember it, nor writing 

 the discouraging letter in regard to building him a machine. 

 The letter, if sent, probably came from our Mr. A. I. Root, 

 who, at that time, was strongly opposed to our building four 

 and six frame machines for the market, as he then believed 

 there was no advantage in them; but "the boys" — Mr. Cal- 

 vert and myself — did not entertain the same opinion, and we 

 constructed a four-frame Cowan In 1891, but we did not 

 advertise the machine until some time later. Mr. Calvert and 

 myself were unaware that Mr. Williams sent a copy of the 

 patent, and so, of course, there was no purpose on our part to 

 copy or steal from another, as implied In the article above. 



It will be seen from tbo foregoing, by any one knowing 

 anything about patents at all, especially in view of the refer- 

 ences cited, that Van Allen & Williams have no more right to 

 claim the principles of our four-frame Cowan extractor than a 



six-year-old boy. It is enough to say that, while it is possible 

 for them to begin suit, they have no chance whatever of 

 securing judgment in their favor. Our patrons may rest 

 assured that we shall protect them in the use of the Cowan 

 extractor. The A. I. Root Co. 



By E. R. Root. 



Do We Waot Apis Dorsata At All ? 



BY H. CHRISSMAN. 



Mr. Editor. — On page 188, Frank Coverdale makes a 

 plea for the introduction of Apis dorsata through the Govern- 

 ment. Speaking of Frank Benton's misdoing, he says : ''This 

 being true would be sufficient to denounce him, and to appoint 

 another more suitable to bee-men." Does not Mr. C. know 

 that bee-men have not a word to say as to the appointment, 

 and that their wishes are not consulted in the matter? If Mr. 

 Benton were removed someone equally objectionable might be 

 in his place. 



To come, however, to the real gist of the matter, do we 

 want Apis dorsata here at all ? As yet we do not know that 

 they can be domesticated, and we do not know that a single 

 pound of honey could ever be got from them, only as it might 

 be had by bee-hunters in the wild state. Now let me picture 

 what I think Mr. C. will admit lies entirely within the range of 

 possibility : 



The b'g bee is introduced into this country and flourishes 

 — at least in the Southern states ; makes its home in trees as 

 it does in India, and increases enormously, but defies domesti- 

 cation. It gathers honey not only from red clover but also 

 from white, and from all the flowers now visited by Apis mel- 

 lifica. The bee-keeper is just so much out of pocket by its 

 introduction, for the harvest is made just so much less. Can- 

 not Mr. C. see that they would be as great a nuisance as the 

 English sparrow ? Even suppose they workt on nothing but 

 red clover, monopolizing that. The day may come when our 

 common bees will be bred so large that they can work freely 

 on red clover, and if red clover is already pre-empted by dor- 

 sata, what gain will the red-clover bees bring? 



Do not say we cannot have Apis mellifica larger than they 

 are in general now. There are common hive-bees in this coun- 

 try now, whose workers are so large that worker-cells are very 

 nearly the size of common drone-cells, with drones large in 

 proportion. If you have the true interests of bee-keepers at 

 heart, don't bring dorsata here till you know you can control 

 it. Erie Co., N. Y. 



When Shall Secood Supers be Given to Bees ? 



BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



I don't wonder Frank Cole doesn't agree with my practice 

 if he thinks, as he seems to on page 181, that before giving a 

 second super I wait till the first is ?i or % full. But that's 

 very far from my practice, Mr. Cole. I'll tell you what it is, 

 or rather I'll try to tell you as nearly as I can, for I don't by 

 any means always do alike. Even if I preferred to do the same 

 thing each time, it would hardly be practicable with more 

 than one apiary, for being absent a few days will make quite 

 a difference in the progress made in a super. But tho strength 

 of a colony, the amount'Of the honey-flow, and the prospect of 

 its continuance, have something to do in the matter. 



As a rule, perhaps I might say that the second super is 

 added when the first is about }i filled. But the rule is sub- 

 ject to many exceptions. Here's a colony that's very strong. 

 It seems crowded with bees — super and hive both — honey is 

 coming with a rush, with every prospect that it will continue 

 so, and altho the super isn't a quarter filled, it may get a sec- 

 ond one, for if it doesn't it may be crowded before it is reacht 

 again. Here's another colony that has made poor work, and 

 the season is poor. Its super is more than half full, but 

 at the rate it has been doing, aud at the rate honey is coming 

 in, it can get along even if the super is more than ■}.{ full. 



Now look again at page 42, and you'll see that I said 

 nothing there to conflict with such practice. The first sen- 

 tence ill that answer to P. O. is incorrect — "would prefer 

 closed-tops, so that the bees could get up through.," I must 

 have relied on the liberality of the compositor to furnish a 

 " not" for that sentence, and I have my opinion of any com- 

 positor so stingy as not to furnish a little word like that, when 

 I furnish all the big words. At any rate, it should read, "so 

 that tho bees could not get up through." I was calling atten- 

 tion to the loss it would bo to have closed-top sections so one 

 would have to wait for the first super to bo finish t so as to take 

 It off and put on the second. I might have said : " When the 



