126 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



April 



Some Apiarian Recollections 



By George W. York 



POSSIBLY I may be forgiven by 

 the reader if I am quite personal 

 in these recollections. If so, I 

 shall begin by saying that my first in- 

 terest in beekeeping and beekeepers 

 began when, during the winters of 

 1881 to 1884, I lived in the very pleas- 

 ant home of Mr. Benjamin Harding, 

 near Kent, Ohio, while teaching the 

 winter country school in his district. 

 He was a nephew of Mr. Thomas G. 

 Newman, and had a few colonies of 

 bees. 



At that time Mr. Newman was ed- 

 itor of the American Bee Journal, in 

 Chicago, and Mr. Harding once said 

 to me that he thought I might pos- 

 sibly be useful in Mr. Newman's em- 

 ploy. Evidently he must have inti- 

 mated as much to Mr. Newman, for, 

 early in March, 1884, when he was 

 visiting his aged sister, and also the 

 Harding family in Kent, I was sent 

 for, and had the pleasure of meeting 

 Mr. Newman for the first time. It was 

 then arranged that I should enter the 

 employ of Thomas G. Newman & 

 Son, in Chicago, 111., at a salary of $50 

 per month. (The "Son" in the firm 

 was Alfred H. Newman, whom many 

 will remember). 



I arrived in Chicago late Saturday 

 night, March 29, and Mr. Newman 

 met me at the Union railroad station, 

 he being the only person in all Chi- 

 cago that I had ever seen before. On 

 Monday morning, March 31, I began 

 my labors in the American Bee Jour- 

 nal office, which ended with May 1, 

 1912, or 28 years afterward. 



The spring of 1892 I purchased the 

 Journal from Mr. Newman and con- 

 tinued as its editor and publisher for 

 20 years, when I transferred it to Mr. 

 C. P. Dadant, of Hamilton, 111., who 

 is still its popular editor. 



I had not been long in the ofiice of 

 the American Bee Journal until I 

 learned that Mr. Newman had made 

 a trip to Europe (in 1879) in the inter- 

 est of American beekeeping; that he 

 had met many of the leading beekeep- 

 ers across the Atlantic, and had vis- 

 ted several countries where beekeep- 

 ing was beginning to be followed 

 quite extensively. He brought back 

 with him the photographs of many 

 of the noted beekeepers whom he had 

 met in England, France and Italy. 

 He delighted to tell of his trip as the 

 accredited representative of Ameri- 

 can beekeepers to the beekeepers of 

 the old world. He was made an hon- 

 orary member of many of the foreign 

 beekeepers' societies, and doubtless 

 helped greatly to establish friendly 

 and helpful relations between the 

 beekeepers of America and those of 

 the foreign countries which he vis- 

 ited. 



The first national convention of 

 beekeepers that I attended was held 

 in Indianapolis, Ind., in 1886. There I 

 met W. Z. Hutchinson, who, a year or 

 two later, started the "Beekeepers' 

 Review," now called the "Domestic 

 Beekeeper." I roomed with him at 

 the hotel where the attending bee- 

 keepers stopped during the conven- 

 tion and he confided to me his plans 



for beginning the publication of the 

 "Review." His enthusiasm was un- 

 bounded then, and evidently was 

 never dampened. 



Mr. Hutchinson was not only a 

 thorough beekeeper, but was a de- 

 lightful man to meet. He had many 

 excellent qualities, and we became 

 fast friends, which continued to the 

 day of his death, in 1910, with the 

 possible exception of the time, a few 

 years after he began the "Review," 

 when he and Prof. A. J. Cook advo- 

 cated the production of "sugar- 

 'honey" by feeding the bees cane 

 sugar during dry and honeyless 

 seasons, which procedure I felt in 

 duty bound to oppose very strongly 

 through the columns of the American 

 Bee Journal. While I afterward 

 found that Mr. Hutchinson and Pro- 

 fessor Cook were sincerely honest in 

 their advocacy of the plan for un- 

 natural comb-honey production, I 

 still think they were wrong in regard 

 to the matter. I believe the great ma- 

 jority of the beekeepers of that day 

 agreed with the stand the American 

 Bee Journal took, and Gleanings in 

 Bee Culture cordially seconded my 

 position. 



I happened to come upon the api- 

 arian scene when the bitter fight con- 

 ducted by Mr.. Newman through the 

 American Bee Journal against Prof. 

 H. W. Wiley's "scientific pleasantry" 

 was at its height. "Scientific pleas- 

 antry" was what Professor Wiley, 

 years afterward, termed his former 

 statement, that the comb of comb 

 Tioney was first made by machinery 

 out of paraffine, then filled with glu- 

 cose, and then sealed over with a hot 

 iron, without the least intervention 

 of the bees — or some such unfortunate 

 utterance, which would suggest 

 "manufactured comb honey by ma- 

 chinery." Of course, coming from 

 such a noted scientist and chemist 

 as was Dr. Wiley at that time, gave 

 it wide publicity, to the great dam- 

 age of comb honey, which never has 

 been, and never will be manufactured 

 except by the bees themselves. 



In those early days it was surpris- 

 ing how many different forms of the 

 "Wiley Lie," as Mr. Newman called 

 it, appeared from various authors, 

 and in many newspapers. It kept Mr. 

 Newman as busy as a bee at a Sunday 

 school picnic to run them down, and 

 the vials of verbal wrath that he 

 poured out upon the mistaken imita- 

 tors of Wiley would have filled a 

 fair-sized encyclopedia. But I am 

 glad to relate that Professor Wiley, 

 in later years, tried to atone for his 

 unfortunate utterance by doing all he 

 could to stop the prevalent practice 

 of adulterating foods of all kinds, so 

 that today there is scarcely any adul- 

 terated foods upon the market, and 

 certainly no adulterated honey. Comb 

 honey has always been genuine, so 

 there was no need to defend it ex- 

 cept from ignorant or mischievous at- 

 tacks. 



I might say here that at the 

 World's Fair convention of the Na- 

 tional Beekeepers' Association, in 

 1895, in Chicago, Mr. Newman and 

 Professor Wiley met for the first 

 time; and as they were introduced 



and shook hands, it was a very tense 

 moment, and a generous outbreak of 

 hand-clapping approved what proved 

 to be the "burying of the hatchet" 

 after a long and bitter war of words, 

 especially on the part of Mr. New- 

 man. 



I recall the great hullaballoo a few 

 would-be apiarian inventors made 

 over their "reversible brood-frames," 

 perhaps James Heddon, of Michigan, 

 being the chief, some 30 years ago. 

 Wonderful claims were made for such 

 frames, and also for reversible hives; 

 but like many other fads, they have 

 almost been forgotten. 



Almost immediately after coming 

 into the editorship of the American 

 Bee Journal, I visited Dr. C. C. Miller 

 and family in their quiet, restful 

 home in Marengo, 111., about 65 

 miles northwest of Chicago. I think 

 it was in 1892. At that time Dr. Mil- 

 ler was running a home bee-yard and 

 two or three out-yards, all for comb 

 honey. I had met him before that, 

 in Chicago, but I wanted to see him 

 in his home and bee-yard, and also 

 meet his good wife and her sister. Miss 

 Emma Wilson, who for so many years 

 has been Dr. Miller's splendid assist- 

 ant in all of his bee work. I had a 

 most delightful time, and then be- 

 gan some of the most intimate and 

 valued friendships of all my life, 

 which have continued unto the pres- 

 ent day. 



From the very time I became editor 

 of the American Bee Journal I looked 

 forward with eager interest to the 

 time when I should have the oppor- 

 tunity of meeting by competitor in 

 the editorial field — Mr. Ernest ^ R. 

 Root — now for some 40 years editor 

 of Gleanings in Bee Culture. It 

 finally came at the annual meeting of 

 the National Beekeepers' Association 

 on the World's Fair grounds in Chi- 

 cago, the fall of 1893, in the Louisiana 

 Hotel. 



I wondered just how I would like 

 Mr. Root; how he would impress me, 

 etc. I am free to say that I was de- 

 lighted with him, and have been so 

 ever since. There has never been a 

 single break, or even a crack, in our 

 long years of friendship, so far as I 

 know; but I think the credit for its 

 uniformity and continuance is due to 

 Mr. Root. He has always met me 

 more than half way. 



It seems that for many years pre- 

 ceding the year 1890 there did not 

 exist the best of feeling among the 

 editors of the bee papers, and also 

 among a number of the leading bee- 

 keepers. It became tiresome, and 

 must have been almost annoying to 

 some of the peaceable readers. But 

 the times were changing. We young 

 editors seemed to have a different 

 view of some things. We coiild for- 

 get the things that were behind, and 

 cared more for the future. And for 

 all the 20 years following 1892 we 

 tried to keep out of our columns 

 anything that looked like fussing, al- 

 though, of course, there were occa- 

 sional times when it seemed neces- 

 sary to speak plainly. But on the 

 whole, I believe that as beekeepers 

 became better acquainted with each 

 other, through conventions and oth- 



