1888 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTUKE. 



451 



dent which I tried to tell. No doubt your 

 memory is mucli better than my own, tor 

 the reason you have alluded to in your quo- 

 tation. Most surely 1 never intended to 

 convey the idea to any one that there was 

 any thing sour or narrow in the genial spirit 

 of our old friend J^angstroth. If such an 

 impression was ever given, 1 most heartily 

 beg pardon, and accept your statement of 

 the matter. 



A KINDLY CRITICISM 

 COOK 



FROM PROF. 



SHALL WE ENCOUBAOE THE PRACTICE OF SELL- 

 ING INDIVIDUAL HIOHTS, ETC.? 



a EAR FRIEND ROOT:-As a true friend who 

 has great respect for your work, great re- 

 gard for yourself, and who rarely finds oc- 

 casion to differ seriously if at all with the 

 positions you have taken, yet I must ex- 

 press my sorrow at the words you speak in reply 

 to our dear friend Langstroth's article on the Hed- 

 don hive. First, I am sorry you say: "With the 

 exception of friend Heddon I believe almost all the 

 bee-keepers of our land have abandoned the mat- 

 ter of individual rights fls not the proper thing to 

 do." Now, dear friend, I hope, as I believe, that 

 you are in error. I am on the side, emphatically, 

 of your minority; and I believe there is an army 

 with me. I don't believe Mr. Langstroth has ever 

 advised against it because it is improper. Oh no! 

 only because it is ill advised. And why ill advised? 

 Just because of such editorials as you have written. 

 Our people will not respect the right of property— a 

 patent on an original invention is as much proper- 

 ty as a horse— till we all teach that all property is 

 sacred. A person who patents a cheap article, es- 

 pecially if the article is not greatly in demand, is 

 very likely to have the article pilfered from him. 

 If of great value, like the movable frame, it is easy 

 for designing men to berate its value, or create, by 

 insinuating remarks, a general mistrust of its orig- 

 inality, and thus, as in the case of Mr. Langstroth, 

 do terrible injury. O friend Root! don't say"im- 

 pi-oper." Say patents on original inventions are 

 right and legitimate, and should ever be respected 

 and honored. I should have as much right to pat- 

 ent a new invention as to copyright my book. Was 

 that an improper thing? Your many inventions, 

 chief of which is your roller machine, you could, 

 from your position as editor, author, and general 

 supply-dealer, well afford to give to the public; for, 

 from your great chance to advertise, you could 

 hold your own against rival manufacturers. Yet 

 you charged three prices at first (through no fault 

 of yours, however, though you consented to it) for 

 your roller machine, and thus obtained what you 

 condemn in a patentee. 



My dear friend, I wish you would come out 

 square in this matter as follows: A man who dis- 

 covers or invents a new thing has a perfect right to 

 a patent on it. If valuable, any who use it should 

 pay for the right. If worthless, no one should buy. 

 I would not for any consideration teach what you 

 teach on this matter. I would urge all to bo wary 

 in buying patents; never to do so till they are sure 

 of the value of the article, and of its suitability to 

 their business or needs. Everybody must be judge 

 of his invention, and, I think, has a perfect right to 



secure a patent. Patents, then, are not wrong or 

 improper. 



Again, I am sorry you said what you did about or 

 to Mr. Langstroth. If ever a man had occasion for 

 righteou.s indignation it is he. In my many visits 

 with this grand old man I have ever marveled at 

 his charity and kind spirit; even to those who out- 

 rageously cheated him out of his just rights. You, 

 friend Root, Mr. Langstroth, I, nor any other man 

 can use language too strong in denouncing such 

 practices. I am perfectly sure Mr. Langstroth has 

 not been "properly rewarded." I am just assure 

 that he was atrociously swindled. 



As to Mr. Heddon. He surely invented his hive. 

 No intelligent bee-keeper in America doubts it. If 

 you or I think it valueless, or no better than the 

 old non-patented hives, let us say so. Surely let us 

 urge all to adopt it only after careful investiga- 

 tion. But if any do use it, let them pay for the 

 right, just as they would pay for a sack of Hour or 

 the ABC. I think to pay $.5.00 for the right is a 

 grand precedent. It is right and honest. Most 

 kindly and earnestly your friend,— A. J. Cook. 



Agricultural College, Mich., May 35, 1888. 



Friend Cook, I am deeply pained to be 

 obliged to disagree with you, as I must 

 conscientiously disagree on this question. 

 Pretty much all you have said in the above 

 was talked over years ago. We did not 

 agree then, and we pr()l)ably shall not agree 

 now. I think we agree fully, however, in 

 regard to respecting the rights of property. 

 Your book is clearly your own. There is no 

 question about the ownership. When you 

 get into this business of individual rights, 

 it is like deciding when sweet cider becomes 

 sour or intoxicating. Most good people 

 have decided not to drink cider at all, on ac- 

 count of the harm it has done ; and I think, 

 too, that most good people have decided to 

 have nothing to do with this right-selling 

 because of the liavra it has done, and of the 

 swindles it has fostered and encouraged. 

 Very likely (juite a large class of people 

 think I have wronged Mr. Forncrook in de- 

 fending the rights of the bee-keeping public. 

 You, perhaps, say that Mr. Forncrook in- 

 vented a very little and claimed a good deal. 

 If so, who can draw the dividing line? 

 Gleanings has alwiays opposed right-sell- 

 ing, because of the kind of fruit it has 

 borne ; and I am pretty sure that Glean- 

 ings w^ill always stand where it has stood. 

 Other bee-journals can take a dift'erent posi- 

 tion if they choose, and I shall feel just as 

 friendly toward the editors as if they 

 thought as I do. I did not mean to bring 

 this subject up, and I should not have 

 brought it up had I not been obliged to de- 

 cide between two alternatives. I decided 

 in the way that 1 thought kindest and 

 wisest ; and, dear friend Cook, I do not be- 

 lieve that I am so very much in the wrong. 

 Many kind words have come in, approving 

 of my course ; but at this date, not one tak- 

 ing tlie side of friend Heddon and our good 

 friend Jvangstroth, except your own article 

 above. Tnder the circumstances, 1 think 

 it would be no more than fair to use a por- 

 tion of a letter from our good friend W. E. 

 Clark, president of the York State Bee' 

 keepers" Association. It is as follows : 



Deo) Bnithcv.'-l think the bee-keepers oujfht to 



