410 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 15. 



and now. all for a dollar. Should not all your 

 many readers own and read ibis latest edition ? 

 Could it but be of many dollars' worth of advan- 

 tage to them? If all tlie kernels on this last 

 nubbin are blasted, throw it into that conven- 

 ient compost, the editorial basket. 



A. .1. Cook. 

 Agricultural College, Mich., May .5. 



[P^riend C, I am exceedingly Obliged to you 

 for your kind words in your opening paragraph. 

 Such a thought from any one would make me 

 feel glad; but it comes to me with additional 

 force because of the weight that attaches to 

 any opinion you may see tit to give. I am glad, 

 too. that you have given this suggestion in re- 

 gard to foul brood. An unfavorable condition 

 in the plant or animal invites not only conta- 

 gion, btit various insect and fungoid foes. How 

 often, when we think something is new, some- 

 body reminds us that it is already mentioned in 

 Cook's Manual I And I do tliink that all bee- 

 keepers who are not in possession of a copy 

 might now, at least while the price is only a 

 dollar, have one for a convenient handbook.] 



ARE THE FOOT-NOTES SOMETIMES UNFAIR T 



DR. MILLER REVIEWS THE MATTER. 



Not long ago I found some fault with the 

 foot-notes, saying they were, perhaps uncon- 

 sciously, too much given to saying smooth 

 things: and now friend Green (p. 367) says they 

 are too much given to saying rough things. 

 Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 

 At any rate, I should be very sorry to have any 

 thing said that would make much change in the 

 foot-notes. They are the best part of Glean- 

 ings. Right or wrong, the editor of a bee- 

 journal is supposed to have more than the 

 average amount of knowledge as to bee-lore, 

 and it is always interesting and often instruct- 

 ive to have the views of more than one on any 

 given subject. . 



Suppose two bee-keepers. Brown and White, 

 are both men of judgment and experience, and 

 Brown is talking about something that you are 

 interested to learn, how natural it is. when he 

 stops, for you to turn around and say, " White, 

 whatdoyou think about that?" So we like 

 to turn to the editor, and say to him, •' What do 

 you think about that?" and we expect our an- 

 swer in the foot-note. If Brown is talking 

 about a thing ovei' which he is somewhat en- 

 thusiastic, it is quite natural for him to i)aint it 

 somewhat rose color, foi-getting to mention ob- 

 jections, and then it is the part of a faithful ed- 

 itor to call attention to the other side. Again, 

 an item is given that is of such value, if true, 

 that the attention of every one should be par- 

 ticularly called to it, and the indorsement of the 

 editor gives the reader more confidence in it. I 

 do not say that the knowledge of the editor is 

 perfect — the number of such people is limited. 

 But he ought to be right generally, and he may 

 suggest a view from another standpoint. 



Let us examine a little. Look on page 383. 

 There's an item recommending glue in white- 

 wash for hives. Now. without the foot-note 

 some one might have all his hives covered with 

 a wash he would regret. He is at least put on 

 his guard; and if some one has tried glue and 

 finds it stands the rain, you may be sure he will 

 be heard from. 



On the same page is a recipe for labeling tin— 

 a thing that has been sought for. Two men 

 vouch for its success, and I have confidence in 

 it: but that confidence is greatly heightened 

 when the editor indorses it, not only because it 

 is corroborative testimony, but because, from 



his experience in that direction, his testimony 

 ought to be good. You see, friend (ireen, the 

 foot-notes are not all fault-finding. On the 

 same page is another that is fault-finding. A 

 correspondent asks a trial of queen-excluding 

 top-bars. The editor sits down on it very 

 gently. I think if friend Green or I had been 

 there we would have said, "That thing has 

 been tried, and you'll only fool away time on 

 it." The foot-note, gentle as it is. may save 

 disappointment in more than one case. 



No, fi'iend Root, don't repress the foot-notes, 

 whatever else you do. Rather than that I'll 

 take back all I said, and allow you to swing 

 your hat, and sing out " Hurrah foi' our side I " 

 at every favoi'able report that comes in. 



SHALL THE N. A. B. K. A. AND B. K. U. I'NITE ? 



Friend France, p. 16(5, asks me to explain how 

 the Union would be benefited bv the union. 

 His opposition to it, indorsed by "E. R.. makes 

 me a little doubtful. Perhaps the disadvan- 

 tages preponderate. I'll try to tell the advan- 

 tages, and may not find them so many as I had 

 supposed. The first one that suggests itself is 

 the opportunity for an annual meeting. I know 

 that friend Fi'ance says the Union doesn't have 

 to meet anywhere to do its business. But that 

 is just because it can't very well do so, however 

 much the advantage might be. At least once. 

 I think, it has had a meeting, and that was at a 

 meeting of the N. A. B. K. A. The business is 

 done mainly by the manager, but he sometimes 

 consults with the other officers, and I feel siu'e 

 that he would be glad to do so oftener if it wen^ 

 not for the fact that all consultations must be 

 by mail, without the opportunity of a personal 

 meeting. In a late luimber of the American 

 Bee Journal the question is raised (page 481) 

 whether the Union can not do some work that 

 the manger can not do without a change of its 

 laws. The question as to the advisability or 

 non-advisability of the particular case men- 

 tioned does not now concern us. but it is entire- 

 ly in the range of possibility that some change 

 or some action might be needed that would be 

 the better for close personal discussion. 



Then there is some advantage in the way of 

 enthusiasm to be had from a personal meet- 

 ing. I think that friend France will testify that 

 the Union got a pretty good lift fi'om the pres- 

 ence of the manager at Madison at the Wis- 

 consin convention. If I am not mistaken, the 

 members of the Union are much the same from 

 yeai' to year — that is, a man who joins once is 

 likely to renew his membersliip the next year. 

 Now, suppose that the two societies were unit- 

 ed, how many new members would the Keokuk 

 conventit)n have brouglitinto the Union? I don't 

 know, but I think fifty would be a pretty safe 

 guess. And each year the N. A. B. K. A., from 

 its wandering character, might do the same. 

 Don't you think that would be quite an object? 

 Might it not be a benefit to the N. A. B. K. A. 

 to consummate the union? It would certainly 

 do something toward giving it stability of char- 

 acter, a thing it very much needs. At present 

 there seems to be a union in so far that the re- 

 ports of the Union are presented at the annual 

 conventions of the N. A. B. K. A. 



Haven't I shown at least .so/hc benefit to i)e 

 had from the combine? Now please tell us 

 what harm would come of it. C. C. Miller. 



Marengo, 111. 



[We try. friend M.. to make our notes fair, 

 but 1 fear that we do not always do it — not from 

 a disposition to be unjust, but because of a lack 

 of knowledge sometimes: for, as you say. editors 

 are fallible. I am glad yon have taken up the 

 other side, pai'ticularly as the foot-notes you 

 commend were by me. I won't get conceited 



