1886 



GLEAN^GS LN IJEE CULtUllE. 



171 



"WIDE FRAMES AND SEPARATORS. 



AliE THEV A CONVENIENCE OH A NUISANCE? 



HEN you said, Mr. Editor, in Gleanings for 

 Jan. 15, pag'e 45, "It is a little amusing- to 

 sec friend Heddon go back and declare in 

 favor of wide frames, and ii<'})nrati>r>i also, 

 after the way he has denounced both," I 

 said to myself, "Good I for this will cause Bro. 

 Heddon to explain to us in what manner he has 

 been enabled to overcome the difficulties he once 

 found in the use of them, which was so great that 

 he discarded wide frames, and denounced separa- 

 tors as ' nuisances.' " After thus thinking, inuigine 

 my surprise to And W. Z. Hutchinson writing on 

 page 87 of Gleanings, "Can you show, friend Root, 

 where he (Heddon) has harshly denounced wide 

 frames or separators?" and saying, after a search 

 through numerous back volumes of the bee-papers, 

 " I can not find that Mr. Heddon has ever denounc- 

 ed separators." 



Well, thought 1, can it be that I am so much mis- 

 taken? for it can not be that a man who has cham- 

 pioned another, as Bro. Hutchinson has friend 

 Heddon, can not know whereof he speaks. It was 

 but the work of a moment for me to turn to page 33 

 of the A. B. J. for 1S81, where I find recorded, under 

 the name of James Heddon, these words: 



" Separators cost me too great a portion of my 

 surplus crop, to sa.v nothing of their ,^rsf cost and 

 trouble of manipulating." 



On page 66 of same volume I find this: 



"Separators are better adapted to some supply- 

 dealer who can ' grind ' his ax M'ith them " (than for 

 raising comb honey, I suppose is to be inferred). 



Again, on page 75, A. B. J. for 1881, I read: 



" All separators are a great drawback to the pro- 

 duction of comb honey." 



Then on page 106, these words appear; 



" If it is strange that I should declai-e against the 

 use of (ill separators," etc.; while on page 170 of 

 same volume he says: 



" Yes, it is true that we do not need to attach any 

 costly and complicated contrivances (separators) to 

 make our chosen fiurphcs ifystem vfork to our pcifrct 

 ftatisfaction." (Italics mine in this individual case). 

 By again referring to page ^, I read : 



" There is no need of the nuisances called separa- 

 tors," which I am sure is a hnrnh dsiumciatioii, if 

 none of the rest can be so construed. 



What think you, Bro. Hutchinson? Now, I have 

 not written this altogether to prove that Bro. 

 Hutchinson made a mistake, and that friend Root 

 was right, but mainly for the purpose of drawing 

 Bro. Heddon out, so that he will tell us wherein he 

 has remedied the defective system of separators, so 

 that he has gone from the calling of them " nui- 

 sances," to using and recommending them to oth- 

 ers. If, as he says, they cost him " too great a por- 

 tion of his surplus crop," how has he brought it 

 about so that now they cost him none of it? and if 

 "all separators are a great drawback to the pro- 

 duction of comb honey," what special plans has he 

 adopted regarding separators, so that this draw- 

 back has been overcome? These questions are of 

 vital importance to us; and if Bro. Heddon has no 

 secrets in the matter we should like to have him 

 explain. 1 have always used separators in the 

 same way Bro. H. now docs in his new hive, and 

 called them a convenience rather than a "nui- 

 sance;" and if there is any knowledge to be gained 



whereby T can add to mj' crop of surplus hotiey, I 

 am interested to gain it. Now about wide frames. 



On page 170 of A. B. J. for 1881, Bro. Heddon says, 

 " The I'eason I discarded the broad (wide) frame 

 system was because the sections were so stuck up 

 with propolis;" while on page 100 of present vol- 

 ume of Gleanings he says, " I was driven from 

 their (wide frames) use, as well as the hundreds 

 who went with me, from our experience with them 

 in two-story supers." Now, Bro. H., which of these 

 reasons is right? If the latter, you have told us how 

 you overcome the objection to "two-story supers;" 

 but if the former, you have not told us how you 

 overcame the propolis question. Of course, you 

 have in some way, for this propolis question has 

 been raging for years, and I am sure you would not 

 leave your case system, which was so free from pro- 

 polis, and go to using the wide-frame system, 

 without overcoming this defect. Propolis on sec- 

 tions is a nuisance, be the same little or much ; and 

 a plan which will allow of the filling of the sections 

 with nice comb honey, without changing the clean 

 appearance which they present when placed upon 

 the hive, will be heralded with delight by all, and 

 give great honor to him who works out the plan. 

 Surely none of us can object to anj' one changing 

 his plans as often as occasion requires; but in do- 

 ing so it is well to say that previous views were 

 mistaken ones, or else give to the public how our 

 former objections have been overcome. When 

 friend Betsinger invented wide frames in connec- 

 tion with separators, to be used one tier high, he 

 gave us one of the greatest conveniences regarding 

 the production of comb honey; and Bro. Heddon's 

 going back to these is one of the best parts to his 

 new system of management. G. M. Doolittle. 



Borodino, N. Y., Feb. 13, 1886. 



SOMETHING FURTHER ON THE TEM- 

 PERANCE QUESTION. 



IS license or t.\.\.\tion to be considered at 

 all? 



f 



F you have no objections, I will offer a few words 



in reply to Prof. Cook, on page 47. He says: 



^11 " Why will not a law like that adopted in some 



of the States suit all, do more good, and get 



the support of all temperance people? That is, 



a license with a heavy fee in conjunction, with local 



option in every town, viUagc, ovcity where it can be 



carried?" 



A right to grant a license implies a right to with- 

 hold it; hence a license law which does not compel 

 the granting of licenses is in effect a local-option 

 law. Whether the option should be exercised by 

 States, by counties, or by towns, is the question. 

 Prof. Cook says by towns, villages, and cities, and 

 for a high price. This is just what we have now, 

 and have always had in Wisconsin. But this is far 

 from being a model temperance State, though the 

 price of a licen.sc is not less than two hundred dol- 

 lars. The amount paid is a direct hrihe paid to the 

 village for the privilege of cursing the community. 

 Our village of M. has about 1000 inhabitants. It 

 collects for liquor-licenses, two thousand dollars 

 annually; four-fifths of that amount is paid into 

 the village treasury through the saloons by the 

 surrounding agricultural towns. In return for this, 

 the agricultural interests are taxed to support the 

 I^aupers and prosecute the criminals, made such by 



