18S)1 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



411 



about it, but try the more to make them free 

 fi'ora criticism. I am how reading up the baclv 

 vohimes of tiie old bee-journals, in order that I 

 may be posted in what is new and what is old, 

 and what has been tested and found wanting, 

 and what has been tested and found to be good. 

 In regard to merging the Bee-keepers' Union 

 into the N. A. B. K. A., I have to acknowledge 

 that I am converted to your position ; in fact, 

 Mr. Newman says the Union is part and parcel 

 <if the N. A. B. K. A., so far as its pi'otective 

 care is concerned.] E. R. R. 



THE HOME TALKS IN GLEANINGS. 



KSPECIALIA' TIIK ONE FOR AI'IUI- 15. 



Mr. A. T. Root :—Vi'rmit me to find a little fault 

 witli the Home talks in Gleanings. 1 liave been a 

 reader of your jovu'ual for several years, and have 

 been an admirer of its nioi'al tone and of the ser- 

 mons; but througli all there runs a vein of wliat I 

 have often /leard called " cMotism." Tliis seemed to 

 mar the value of the otlierwise e.xcellent discourses; 

 l)ut tine jiluhinthropy seemed to be back of all this, 

 so we (lid not care to (•()mi)laiu. But after Mr. Bra- 

 ley complains so vigoiously, you seem to get "riled," 

 aiid say harsh thing-s, or, ratlier, allow others to say 

 them, and then you publish it witli your approval. 

 In this wa.v you manage to say that Mr. B. is "an- 

 other" (egotist), and tliat you suspect he doesn't 

 know much, and you liave lots of friends any way. 

 Now, If this came fi'om a man who swears, like 



, for instance, it would not do much harm; 



but coming from a Christian teacher, it is highly per- 

 nicious. The apostle cautions us to avoid all ai>]>ear- 

 a lice of evil, that the gospel be not spoken against; 

 but you rail at Mr. B., and send it to ^^(Wneaders 

 (if Gleanings is lent everj-where as it is here, there 

 are nearer 30,000), so you can see how much harm it 

 may do. In reality Mr. B. does not show egotism by 

 his refusal to take a thing he doesn't like; and Mr. 

 Woodbury is plainly wrong in his n-marks. 



You have no doubt read in Pilgrim's Progress of 

 how Clii'istiaii and Hoiieful followed Fliitterer in a 

 patli apparently strMJght at first, but turning by de- 

 giees till they tt;ivele(l in tlie opposite direction. I 

 do not say that your friends incan to flatter you; but 

 tlie dangers tliat Biuiyan pictured still exist. 



Now, please do not think that this is wiitten in a 

 spirit of liostilitj. or is pj-ompted bj' jealousy. We 

 envy no man prosperity. After all, the question is 

 not," What are the motives of tliis?" but, "Is it 

 true ?" A SuBSCRiBEK. 



Permit me to thank you, my good friend, for 

 your kindly and just criticism. You are right 

 in the position you take, that friend Braley has 

 not been fairly treated. The same is also true 

 of that California association. Why, then, was 

 it permitted to go into print unnoticed? Sim- 

 ply for the reason that I could not, in one paper, 

 take up all these side issues. I started out with a 

 text and with a particular point to make. The 

 point was, that we should have more faith in the 

 Scripture injiuiction to return riood for evil, and 

 that we should not be troubled wh(ui we are criti- 

 cised or persecuted: and I certainly made a strong 

 point, and a helpful one. for the letters I have 

 received indicate clearly and unquestionably as 

 much. Now, had 1, at the same time, taken up 

 this point you mention, it would have diverted 

 the thouglitof my readers from the great moral 

 I wished to make, and it would have wc^akened 

 the effect of my talk. The kind letters I quot- 

 ed were sirnply to show that I had not suffered 

 in public opinion or public estimation by what 

 friend Braley had said. I did not mean to car- 

 ry the idea that the writers of these kind letters 

 were entirely right. I kiunv they were preju- 

 diced in my favor. I rather hoped the readers 

 of GIjEANIngs would recognize this without tiie 

 necessity of my taking space to correct it. I 

 told you, in that same paper, that one of my 

 besetting sins ?A'as egotism before the grace of 

 God toned down one of the great defects of my 

 character. T well knew I was laying myself 



open to the charge you make when I published 

 these kind letters; but how else could I show to 

 the world, or to our boys and girls, that, if 

 their hearts are right in the sight of God, they 

 need not trouble themselves to tight back. The 

 point was this: Do (jood to those that hate you. 

 and at the same time tight the evil in your own 

 heart, instead of fighting those who have perse- 

 cuted or criticised you. I surely was not 

 "riled."' as you express it, my good friend; 

 neither did iVish to call friend Braley an ego- 

 tist. If it sounded so, it was a mistake on my part. 

 I have all along had the kindliest feelings toward 

 him. I do know it is exceedingly important 

 that I, as a teacher, should be 'Vcry careful: and 

 1 thank you for kindly reminding me of its 

 great importance. There M'rts a time when the 

 flatterer might have turned me from duty; but 

 I do not believe that flattery now can swerve 

 me from the straight and narrow path very 

 much. If it would, God knows I have enough 

 praise to place me in danger. I have been pray- 

 ing all along, and I will pray still harder, that 

 none of these things may move me from the 

 work whereuuto he has called me. 



Here is another letter, something in the same 

 line. This, also, comes from a church-member, 

 as you will notice. It is simply an extract from 

 a very kind letter like your own: 



You wi^l pardon me if I should act the critic 

 awhile. I, too, am a member of tlie church; and 

 while I admire the way you fight tlie De\il in your 

 warfare against some of the e^ils in the world, I 

 admire, also, the moral tone of Gleanings' make-ui). 

 But the Home Papers which you publish, I do not 

 place a very high estimate upon. I verily believe 

 that the publication of those Home talks has been 

 very profitable to your business, and a source of 

 revenue to you for many years, wliich no doubt you 

 have enjoyed. Those simple talks have been the 

 means of building up j'our immen.se busines.s. I 

 would not have you stoi) pul)lisliing them on my ac- 

 count, as some of the good brotliers were afraid j'ou 

 might do, wlio so gallantly came to your aid with 

 their sympathies. No: when a man has found a 

 good ad\-eitising medium, as you have found in the 

 Home Papers, why, it would be foolish to give them 

 up. L. A. DOSCH. 



Miamisburg, Ohio, May 9. 



Dear friend, D., I am well aware that the 

 Home Papers ftave been a means of building up 

 our business: but I assure you, from the bottom 

 of my heart, that they were never written with 

 this end in view. The result has only been 

 another of the pleasant surprises I tried to tell 

 you about in that Home Paper that has been 

 criticised. You are right in your a.ssertion that 

 they have been profitable: but you are entirely 

 wrong in your conclusion that they were writ- 

 ten from a selfish motive. I am not working 

 for money. In one sense I do not care particu- 

 larly whether our business builds up or not. In 

 fact, it /KfiJi.s' me to see some departments en- 

 larging. As an illustration: I feel troubled to 

 see our advf^'tising columns grow and expand 

 when it is not perfectly clear to me that the 

 good friends who patronize us will get theii- 

 money back. If, however, the business can 

 continue to increase and enlarge in such a way 

 that Christ Jesus may never be crowded out of 

 sight, and that his dear name may be honored 

 and fjlorified at every .ste/), then let it build: 

 otherwise, may God forbid. A. I. R. 



THE DUTY ON QUEENS. 



PHOF. COOK REVIEWS THE SITUATIOX. 



This new tariff on imported queens is really 

 quite a serious matter. The factsare just these: 

 The McKinley bill places a tariff of 30 per cent' 

 on all imported animals. This, of course, in- 

 cludes queen-bees. There is, however, a clause 



