1921 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



321 



eluding education and training of em- 

 ployees, correction and adaptability 

 of freight handling methods, accurate 

 billing, correct and legible marking, 

 good packing and suitable containers. 

 The co-operation of the shipping pub- 

 lic is, of course, essential to the suc- 

 cess of their undertaking. 



Good packing and marking and the 

 use of good containers are vital fac- 

 tors in the railroad claim situation 

 and are subjects that are especially 

 pertinent to the shipper. The three 

 go well together. Each is dependent 

 on the other and the lack of one in- 

 variably results in a casualty. 



The subject of packing is too big 

 for detailed treatment here. It de- 

 pends upon the nature of the com- 

 modity, but has at least one essential 

 feature, which is adequacy. No one 

 knows the packing requirements for 

 perishable or fragile commodities so 

 well as the shippers or producers. 

 Their experience and good judgment 

 must be largely depended upon to 

 prepare shipments for the ordinary 

 shocks of every day railroading. 



CoiTect marking is elementary. Old 

 marks should invariably be erased 

 from second-hand containers. When 

 consignor's name is shown it should 

 be prefixed by the word "from," to 

 distinguish it from the name of con- 

 signee. Street and number should 

 be shown whenever possible and 

 markings on packages or tags should 

 be legible and not easily erased, re- 

 moved or defaced. 



The use of suitable containers is 

 one of the largest single factors 

 among the preventable causes of 

 claims and presents probably the 

 broadest field in which the shipper 

 may lend his co-operation in this 

 campaign. Frail containers are 

 chronic claim producers. Sturdy con- 

 tainers are claim preventers. The 

 word "container" is used in a dual 

 sense to include the completed pack- 

 age and the units of which the pack- 

 age is composed ; as in the case of a 

 box containing honey in metal fric- 

 tion top cans and a box containing 

 comb honey in frames; boxes and 

 cans are uniformly called "contain- 

 ers." Experience teaches us that 

 honey in frames and honey in cans 

 require different standards of con- 

 tainers to resist the shocks of trans- 

 portation, and it takes very little im- 

 agination to arrive at such a conclu- 

 sion. The same is true of all other 

 commodities. What is good enough 

 for one is insufficient for others, and 

 while there are specified rules cover- 

 ing standards of containers for spe- 

 cific commodities, the question of 

 what is a good container in the sense 

 that it will amply protect and carry 

 the shipment, is often dependent on 

 the good judgment of the shipper 

 alone. Bags, barrels, crates, cans, 

 boxes, etc., must be adapted to the 

 class of freight they are used to pro- 

 tect and transport, and should be of 

 sufficient strength in every case to 

 preclude the possibility of loss or 

 damage by any cause short of unfair 

 handling. 



Economy in material for contain- 

 ers often turns into waste of contents 

 at the expense of all concerned. Good 



containers mean less claims, better 

 service and satisfied patrons and cus- 

 tomers. The most universally used 

 material for containers is wood, and 

 the subject of wooden box constxnic- 

 tion is susceptible of very careful 

 study. The Forest Products Labora- 

 tory of the United States Forest Ser- 

 vice at Madison, Wis., has some inter- 

 esting data on box construction tend- 

 ing to prove the possibility of better 

 boxes at less expense. It is under- 

 stood that shippers and others inter- 

 ested may secure valuable informa- 

 tion on the subject by addressing the 

 laboratox-y. 



It is said that a package of freight 

 properly packed and marked and ii. 

 a good container, is half way to des- 

 tination even before it leaves the 

 shipper's possession. Too much em- 

 phasis cannot be placed on the three 

 essential factors in the preparation 

 of freight-packing, marking and con- 

 tainers. 



With these three at 100 per cent, 

 the railroad employee should be on 

 his mettle to do his part in complet- 

 ing a good job and getting the ship- 

 ment to destination and into the 

 hands of the consignee in full and in 

 good order. This is the ideal situa- 

 tion we are striving for, and while we 

 may not always hit the mark, it is 

 earnestly hop?d that with co-opera- 

 tion between the shipping public and 

 the carriers' employees, and with the 

 exchange of ideas and the general 

 awakening of the claim prevention 

 spirit in everyone, we may come 

 mighty close to our expectations. 



Chicago, May 13, 1921. 



UNWISE LAW MAKING 



By Allen Latham 



On page 176 of the American Cee 

 Journal we read that Pennsylvania 

 has passed a law making it unlawful, 

 after July 1, 1925, to keep bees in 

 other than hives having movable 

 combs. It may be unwise upon the 

 part of the writer to call such lav- 

 making unwise, but such law-making 

 is to my mind foolish, and I am go- 

 ing to state my reasons for my be- 

 lief. 



In the first place, it is human na- 

 ture to rebel against a "thou shalt 

 not." There are times, to be sure, 

 when a prohibitive legislation is the 

 only cure for an evil. Such a case is 

 that of prohibiting the liquor traffic. 

 Personally I believe that everyone 

 should have the right to sell liquor it 

 he wishes, and that it should hold a 

 place on the shelves of stores like 

 any other commodity. But, unfor- 

 tunately, there are many people who 

 abuse the use of alcohol, and for the 

 good of all, we are obliged xo pro- 

 hib:;. 



In the case of keeping bees other- 

 wise than in movable-comb hives, I 

 think some remedy can be found 

 much better than a prohibitive law. 

 I shall discuss this point later. 



In the second place, all prohibitive 

 laws fail of being effective unles.-> 

 backed up by penalties and law en- 

 forcement. Pennsylvania may pass 

 the law, but what of it? That law 

 will stand on the statutes of Penn- 



sylvania like many laws upon the 

 statutes of Connecticut, dead and 

 forgotten a few years after its en- 

 actment. The game is not worth the 

 candle, and the law will die a natural 

 death. 



In the third place, what is the 

 good, even if the law could be en- 

 forced? It is the hope of those who 

 got the law passed that through its 

 means bee-disease may be brought 

 under control. Let us consider the 

 pros and cons of this for a few min- 

 utes. It is true that in the hands of 

 skillful people the modern beehive 

 is a great aid to checking bee dis- 

 ease. A well-kept hive with its 

 straight slabs of combs, each easily 

 taken from the hive, offers a mini- 

 mum of trouble to a bee inspector, 

 and he goes through the apiary with 

 such hives in a very short time. It 

 would take much longer to go 

 through an apiary of box-hives and 

 reach as satisfactory a conclusion. 



Right here comes the trouble. Few 

 beekeepers are skillful. To one who 

 is skillful there are not less than ten 

 or so who are not. How about their 

 movable (?) comb hives? To en- 

 lighten those who have not done in- 

 spection I will cite a few cases. 

 These cases are not made up, but 

 actually taken from my own experi- 

 ence. 



Case No. 1. — This hive was of the 

 eight-frame type. Four of the frames 

 on one side had brood, four on the 

 other had honey. Between the two 

 sets of four was the division-board. 

 Both sides wei'e bound on the so- 

 called division-board and to the hive 

 walls. 



Case No. 2. — This hive had the 

 regulation eight frames, but appar- 

 ently the person who had hived the 

 swarm was nervous, for the frames, 

 mostly of the non-spaced variety, 

 were shoved to one side at one end 

 and unevenly spaced at the other. 

 Combs were built in letter s's, and to 

 the cover of the hive. 



Case No. 3. — This hive had all the 

 frames and they were spaced, but not 

 even starters of foundation were 

 used, and so the combs were built in 

 such manner that some of them occu- 

 pied four frames. 



Case No. 4. — This hive had but 

 four frames, and the owner was a 

 just man. He had averaged those 

 four frames so that each part of the 

 hive had its share. Something doing 

 when I pulled off the cover. 



Case No. 5. — The owner of this 

 hive either did not have any frames 

 or else forgot to put them in. Not so 

 bad, after all, for when the hive was 

 lifted all the combs were easily 

 reached from beneath. 



Case No. 6. — This enlightened 

 owner had a fully equipped hive with 

 full sheets of foundation. The foun- 

 dation was not properly fastened and 

 hence the combs were a variety of 

 marcel waves, graceful to look upon 

 if you can get them out. 



Cases innumerable in which all the 

 combs were so irregular that not one 

 single frame could be removed with- 

 out starting the honey to leaking. 



Nor must we blame ignorant bee- 

 keepers for all this trouble. Twice 



