IS'.t'.' 



(iLKAXINcJS IN KKK (l l/rrUK. 



117 



TIh'M w lull tlit>yarr miitcd thcrt- is w ar w il li 

 lh«' qiit't'ii. and tlic swanniiijj fever is fornoltcii. 

 This is il valiialile iiein. ami we sluuild like to 

 jrel re|)(irts from others.] 



THAT CANADIAN IMBROGLIO. 



I>i;. MlI.I.KK OKFKKS .SOMK NT'I- I'Ol! 1111'. oN- 

 lAKIl) COMMITTKK TO ( KACK. 



Notw illistaiuliii.si the faet tiiat 1 am siiifiled 

 oiit as one of the evil few who were anxious tit 

 oust Canadians from the North American l>(>o- 

 keepers" .Vssoeiatioii. the aetioii taken by the 

 Ontario liee-keepers" Assofiat.ion came to m(^ 

 with a sni'iirise as niter as it was painful. 

 What! desire to be disassociateii fi-om that l>ody 

 of be(>-keepers whiidi includes in its numbers 

 many whom I highly esteem, men whom I love 

 as brotliersi Have I so soon forjjotten the kind- 

 ly spirit sliown by the Canadians at thi' Toronto 

 convention'.' If. in n>ality. 1 had any desire to 

 remain separate from them iieieafter, then I 

 should certainly liave no word to otTer in reply. 

 Or. if the action of the Ontario were simply a 

 withdrawal because fui'ther atliliatioii were 

 considered unpleasant or uni)rolitable. then I 

 could only regri't the loss and submit in silence. 

 Kut when false charges are made, even if they 

 arise entirely. from misconception, then, for the 

 sake of those whose good opinion I value. I may 

 be allowed a reidy. 



Tile first cliarge made is the feeling "on the 

 part of some I'liited States bee-keeper.s to 

 regard and speak of the North American as a 

 national institution." It is true, that the soci- 

 ety was often called the '•National" for short, 

 aiid I think that is all the evidence there was 

 of such feeling, or. rather, of such supposed 

 feeling, for I am sure that for one I never had 

 anv other thought than considering the Cana- 

 dians just as much brethren as the Georgians 

 or Texans. Looking over the pages of the his- 

 tory of the society, characterized by Rev. W. 

 F. Clarke as that "admirable compend" for 

 which ■■ we all owe a debt f)f gratitude to our 

 friend Thomas (J. Newman." I find it called the 

 '• National Society" in the minutes of 1878: and 

 in 1SS4 a motion seconded by a Canadian, S. T. 

 Pettit. appoints a committee " to consider what 

 moditicatioiis, if any. should be made in the 

 NiitiiDKtl .Soci(!ty." "'Rev. \Vm. F. Clarke, of 

 Ontario, spoke at some length on this resolution. 

 . . . He said it was first intendcid to call tlu^ 

 society by the name 'National,' but at his re- 

 quest it was called 'North American,' so as to 

 include Canada. It was often called the " Na- 

 tional Society." l)ut it would be inoni proper to 

 call it the International, for such was its real 

 character, and such he hop(;d it would con- 

 tinue.'" In all this it hardly appears that tlie 

 term. "■National '" was looked ii|>on as any thing 

 betokening any wrong feeling, and it is hardly 

 possible that Mr. Clark<! so considered it. As 

 corroborating this view, Mr. Clarke, in a written 

 address at the convention of ISiio. said. " I do 

 not know of any ill-feeling that rankUrs among 

 us."" So I think it looks itretly clear that. .Mr. 

 Clarke liimself bcdng judge, there was nothing 

 to complain of up to the convention at Keokuk 

 in 18<)0. 



It may be well, also, to mention that at Co- 

 lumbus, in 1888, the name of tlui .society was 

 changed to " International American Hee-Asso- 

 ciation." .\s iif) other countries tiian the United 

 States and Canada were represented in the soci- 

 ety, it certainly does not .seem that tlie adoption 

 of the name International contemplated driving 

 out the Canadians. Moreover, the adoption of 

 this name was at the instigation of Thomas G. 

 Newman, who is held up as one of the bad few. 



'I'wo yeai^ later the ii;iMie was again ehanged 

 to the present one. Mr. (larke himself propos- 

 ing the change. 



1 think' it is pretty clear, thereldre. that, up to 

 the meeting at K'eokuk. all was smooth sailing. 

 At that mei'ting it w as proposed that the society 

 be incorporated. That incorporation was and 

 is the hea<l and front of our olVending. The 

 committee on organization and incorporation 

 in their report, right in the viM'y act of fur- 

 thering the matter of incorporation, recom- 

 mended that the constitution should read in its 

 lirst sentence that the society ■"shall includes 

 in its territory all of the I'nited .States and 

 Canada." Does that look as though thi'y sup- 

 posf^d incorporation would throw out Canada".' 

 It is true, that .Mr. Clarke objected that incor- 

 poration would atl'ect the international char- 

 acter of the sot'ii^ty: but, his thinking so did not 

 make it so. and it was explained that th(!re 

 would be no abridgment of its powers or limita- 

 tion of its scope? by means of incorporation. 



The Ontario report comitlains that at AI1)any 

 the committee on incorporation vouchsafed no 

 information as to the terms, conditions, or ef- 

 fects of incori)oration, but conHned themselves 

 to the bald statement that they had doiK! as 

 they were bidden. Why should they say any 

 thing more ? They were directed to do a specific 

 thing— to get an advantage for the society. 

 They did as instructed, and then came saying, 

 " We've got the advantage." What more was 

 necessary '? 



The Ontario report recites that at Albany one 

 of the committee, in answer to a question, was 

 told that the association was now local, but its 

 influence would be national. This does not 

 agree with the printed minutes, in which E. R. 

 Root replied to Mr. McKnight's question, " It is 

 incorporated under a State law, but its influ- 

 ence is national." 



Objection is made to the word "national." 

 Now. if the mental machinery of others is like 

 mine they would think of Ontario. New York, 

 Illinois, etc., as all one, when speaking of the 

 society, and the word ■"national," in that case, 

 would have just the same meaning as the word 

 "international." I feel pretty sure that Mr. 

 Root and Capt. Hetherington both used it with 

 that signification, and still more sure that Mr. 

 McKnight .so used it in his question. " Is not in- 

 corporating it under a State law making a local 

 .society of what was a national body'?" 



The Ontario committee says it has "come to 

 the conclusion that Canada has no rights under 

 the new state of things, and that it was not 

 intended she sliould." The committee has sim- 

 ply come to two very false conclusions. I don't 

 believe that a single man that favored incor- 

 poration believed that it would take away any 

 of Canada's rights, and I fondly liope that some 

 of my Canadian friends have still conlidence 

 enough in my word, vile oftender though I am 

 held up to be. to Ijelieve me when I say that I 

 liad not th(? most remote intention or desire to 

 do any thing to make the rights of Canada less. 

 I am very confident that tlie rest of the vile few 

 wei-e of the same mind. 



The hint is given that the States other than 

 Illinois sutler from the same limitation as Can- 

 ada. Most assuredly thciy are afTected in the 

 same way, and yet it has not come to my knowl- 

 edge tliat a single word of protest has gone up 

 from any one of them. Surely, the committee 

 ought to find in "the great body of American 

 bee-keepers, which it believes are not responsi- 

 ble," and to which il tenders "assurance of 

 continued fraternal good will, high c(msidera- 

 tion, and cordial regards" — surely among these 

 these there ought to be found not a few ready 

 to rise up in earnest pi'otest against any wrong 

 done to Canada and the States f)Utside of Illinois. 



