m^ 



tihKANlNCS IN itKi: cui/ruKi':. 



18.1 



piiy him moii' tliiiii tlu' S.'lHK), besides and above 

 the other neeessary exjieiises. (."an you. friend 

 Root? If lliis is so— and 1 ran see notliinjr else 

 —then I have a rijjhl lo tin- *.">.(Hi a day as tiie 

 cost of my labor in (be bee-yai'd. if I I'an seeuic 

 tliat mneli. I liave no objeciions to friend 

 Roofs sayinji 1 am " siMling j^ood pay "' (thonph 

 but a irilie eonipareii with what sonn- ai'X). as 

 he does in his footnotes: hut when he sa\ s, "oi-. 

 if you please, prolil," 1 don"l please, for tliat 

 woidd l)e sayinjr that 1 was not worth as nuich 

 to tiie world as my eipially dull elassmate, 

 whom the world considers wortli nearly twenty 

 peroent more than that. Of eourse. our six- 

 hundred-dollar bee-keeper raises something on 

 ids place, has his jjarden. and has his house- 

 reiil: but it is usually as eheaj) to live in a hired 

 iiouse as to kei'p one in repair, eounting interest 

 on moin-y. W'liat he raises on his place is more 

 than otlset. with the majority in the country, 

 by its disadvantasies. such as the lack of best 

 schools, best churches, and social privileges. 

 Add ^i'M) a year to Hilton's orTaylor's estimate. 

 and their showing will be very different, and 

 very much nearer the truth. We -dve.ov xlnmliJ 

 he. "talking of what (tctiKilhj ?.s. not what might 

 be under the nn)st favorable or ideal conditions. 

 A man running a supply business, a farm, or 

 some other Inisiness. may sometimes get his 

 honey cheaper, especially if he allows his other 

 business to pay him the salary he is entitled to; 

 but such would not be a correct and proper 

 showing. 



I might mention other things which no one 

 has taken into account so far. such as that, 

 when the bee-keeper dies and his business is 

 sold out. it decreases in value from :>0 to 7.5 per 

 cent, while the average bee-keeper runs his 

 business less than twenty years; change of sur- 

 plus arrangements, etc., caused by continual 

 improvement, long before they are worn out; 

 buying (jueen -excluders, bee -escapes, drone- 

 traps, and all of the many things necessary to 

 keep up with th(^ times, which would make the 

 interest nearer twenty per cent than the eight 

 which Uro. Hilton allows. Much more might 

 be said along this cost side, but T forbear. All 

 know that the bee-keepers of our land are not 

 getting rich, as far as dollars and cents are con- 

 cerned: and it seems tome lo be a wrong idea 

 to make such a great cry of pratit where there 

 is so "little wool." (i. M. Doolitti.e. 



Borodino, X. Y. 



[Now. friend Doolittle, don't you think you 

 are a leetle " hard-hearted " in intimating that 

 our position •" savors of the hard-listed"? We 

 agree with nearly all you say, and. it seems to 

 us, you would hardly have ijroduced some of 

 these self-evident arguments if yoti had taken in 

 the i/7)o/c/orr-e of what we three said. Let us 

 throw aside the term where we, split, profit and 

 rust, and look at it this w ay: You are making a 

 good living if you can get §5.00 per day out of 

 the bees; so are Taylor and Hilton. The fact 

 is, we are in reality on the same platform, only 

 we didn't know it, or perhaps won't admit it. 

 Dr. Millers article which follows makes this 

 plain.] 



COST OF COMB HONEY. 



Dooi.n ri.i; s w a^es vs. tavlou 



Don't expect me to settle the "question. 1 

 don't know enough. Hut when three men. pos- 

 sessed of as much intelligence as friends Tay- 

 lor, Doolittle. and Hilton are so wide apart in 

 tiieir conclusions, it is worth while to imiuire 

 into the inatter and see whether it is not possi- 

 ble to bring about a reconciliation. I have 



contidence in the honesty of the thre** men; and 

 w hen they give difTerent answers to the same 

 question, it must be they are looking from dif- 

 ferent points of view. 



1 wish wi' had from each of iJiem a statement 

 as to what each means by prujit. Perhaps all 

 thre<' w^ould agr<'e that prolit is the diderr'nce 

 between cost and selling price; but they may 

 not iill mean the same tiling by this. When it 

 comes todelining ro.sA. I suspect they are using 

 the word with different meanings. Doolittle 

 says of Taylor, "■ Is not his time wortli just as 

 much in the ai)iary as it is in the senate or 

 anywhere else?"" May be. and may tje not. 

 If "Mr. Taylor can get ^10 ner day for his tiine 

 at the l)ar or in legislativi' halls, it does not fol- 

 low that it is worth th<> same ev(!iyvvhere else. 

 I can get a man to saw wood for ?^1.")0 per day. 

 If the Hon. R. L. weri; to saw my wood. I 

 shouldn"t like to pay him •■?]() a day for it. nor 

 SI. 50. No. I wouhin't Ix- willing to jiay him 

 §1.07. I doift think he's worth it. Hut I inight 

 be very glad to i)ay him !?."> an hour if 1 needed 

 his valuable advice on sotiie legal ])oint. So I 

 don't believe Mr. Doolittle is right if In; wants 

 us to believe that tiie same man"s time is woi'th 

 the same amount w herevei- it is placed. I don't 

 believe he meant to have us think so. 



A somewhat troublesome friend at my elbow 

 stoutly insists that Doolittle is right. s"he says 

 that, if he can make •«10 <'very day at his pro- 

 fession, and I want him to stop a day to saw- 

 wood for me. I ought not to expect him to do it 

 for less than §10 — a putting of the case that I 

 can not well refute. 



But I don't see that I'm getting ahead any at 

 reconciling Doolittle's S5 a day with Taylor's 

 ?!1.07. I tliink friend Taylor's position is some- 

 thing like this: If I can get a man to do my 

 work at •~?1.07 per day. then I ought to figure 

 •■JLO? as the cost of labor, whether I do the work 

 myself or get some one else to do it. Of course, 

 when I coine to sell my honey I expect to get 

 more than it has cost me, else where is there 

 any profit in the business? And 1 am (Mititled 

 to a prolit on the score of the skill and knowl- 

 edge I have used in directing the lalior? 



If I interpret friend Doolittle correctly, he 

 would say: "" It te(iuires skilled labor to work at 

 bees; and during the busy season I would not 

 be willing to work for another person for less 

 than ^5 per day. neither do 1 think I could hire 

 anyone of equal ability for a less amount. It 

 seems quite clear, therefore, that, ^n per day is 

 a fair amount to figure, in estimating the cost 

 of honey." 



Now. when you get down to bedrock is there 

 any real difference in the views of the two 

 men ? To compare their real views more fairly, 

 this (luestion might be, jjut to them: At what 

 l)rice will you contract to sell all the honey you 

 raise for the next thr(?e or five years? I doubt 

 whether you would find them so very far apart 

 in their answers. However they may talk to 

 each other about the cost, when they come to 

 sell the product, each one wants pay for the 

 same thing, and probably about the same 

 amount of i)ay. Taylor w ants pay for the labor 

 and also for the skill; and Doolittle wants pay 

 for his skilled labor. Where's the difference ? 



Mr. Doolitth; estimates that (")(KK) lbs. of honey 

 cost .■>'.K)U. oi- 1.") cts. jier pound, and conseiniently 

 there is no prolit in it when sold at 15 cts. per 

 pound. .Mr. Taylor estimates that (')(M) ])onnds 

 cost ?=:{75; therefore when sold at 15 cts. per 

 pound there is a |)rotit of •s5:,'5. But, mark you. 

 Mr. Taylor makes no charge for skill, and'Mr. 

 Doolittle does — that is. he charges for skilled 

 labor, which is skill and labor. 



I think the editor gives the key to the situa- 

 tion when he says, on page 130, "When he 

 charges himself ?5 per day for labor, and gets 



