1 S\)-.' 



(;lk.\n'i.\c;s in hee culture. 



8:^7 



ill llif other's i'i\)|i."" Hut i-^irt that talking 

 soiiu'what at random, friend llcwt^s? Suppose 

 Mr. V. lias (■nou!iiii liccs to lick up all tlu' int-lar 

 that is prodiiiM'd. and prcts a crop of 'JO tons. 

 Then suppose Mr. I ;. conies with his 100 colo- 

 nies and trets otl' the same Kround a crop of ".' 

 tons. Is iliere any kind of nianafrenient on ihe 

 part of !.. that, will make the difference to U. 

 any less tiiaii J tons ? 



Hut it ninsi not he forgotten that L.'s bees 

 must have something for their own consump- 

 tion; and as it is cstimati'd that each colony 

 consumes about (■)() Ills, per annum, it, will lake 

 3 tons for 100 colonies. That .'? tons, added to 

 the crop of J tons, makes 5 tons that L.'s bec^s 

 have gathered from the flowers. Will you 

 please tell us how 1>. can manage so badly tliat 

 there will not be just r> tons, clean cut, taken 

 out of U.'s 20 tons? 1 think yon would oiiject 

 with some force, probably with a force of about 

 a tons, against the coming of L.; yet it is ditVi- 

 cult to see how. in the first case, you are going 

 to let U. come in on L.. and in the last case re- 

 verse the matter. Who is going to properly 

 draw the distinguishing line? I am not saying 

 which is the right way: I am only showing the 

 difficulty in the case. 



The ground is taken, that, whenever a man 

 can better himself by it, it is his duty to enter a 

 field occupied by some one else, on the ground 

 that " self-preservation is the first law of na- 

 ture.'" But the '• liist law " is not always the 

 best law. There is a higher law that says. 

 "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 

 Moreover, it is not always tru(! that "'self- 

 preservation is the (list law of nature."' It is 

 not true among bees. Every worker-bee is 

 ready to lose its life for the sake of the rest of 

 the colony. Its motto is not "self-preserva- 

 tion."" but "• the greatest good to the greatest 

 number:" and are not our civil laws based on 

 this very motto? 



With this motto in mind. I think it will not be 

 so very hard to see why the case of the bee- 

 keeper is not e.xactly parallel to that of the 

 merchant. Suppose that, in a village, there is 

 one merchant and one bee-keeper. Another 

 merchant takes up liis abode in the village, and 

 also another bee-keeper. Upon which acces- 

 sion will there be the most self-congratulation 

 among the villagers? Hear Mrs. Jones say to 

 Mrs. Smith. "Isn't it nice that we have a new 

 store? The old store had no competition, and 

 we just had to pay whatever they asked. Now 

 we can have our choice of the two places." But 

 you will hear no such remark about the new 

 bee-keeper, for. if the ground was fully occu- 

 pied by the first m;in. he can not and will not 

 sell honey any cheaper than before, for he can 

 not afford it so well now. It is very true, that 

 the first merchant could afford to sell goods 

 cheaper when he held the ground alone, but, as 

 a rule, he does not till competition compels him, 

 consequently competition secures " the greatest 

 good to the greatest number.'' 



But Mr. Hewes says, ''I can not see why a 

 bee-keeper should be more exempt from compe- 

 tition than a merchant." Candidly, I can't 

 either. Is he? One year I raised half as many 

 strawberries as we could use in our family. My 

 neighbor did the same. Each of us ate all we 

 raised. Was there any competition between 

 us? Certainly not. The next year we raised 

 more, and used them up the same way. There 

 was no more competition than before. The 

 succeeding year we raised them by the acre, 

 and. of course, sold the most of them. Then 

 competition began, and each of us had to sell 

 our berries for a little less than if only one of us 

 had been in the field. Do you notice that there 

 was no competition till there was selling? Our 

 raising berries did not make competition, but 



our KcUUuj did. Is it not the same way with 

 honey? I nev(>r knew tiie time;, since I com- 

 menced the business, that I had not competi- 

 tion. Wlii'ther 1 sold half a pound to a home 

 customer, or shipped a carload to a distant 

 point, there were always others ready and anx- 

 ious to sell to my customers, and competition 

 with them always influenced my price. Hut if 

 a man comes in and spoils my field for both him 

 and m(\ I don't call that competition any more 

 than I would call it competition for a merchant 

 next door to another to pile up empty boxes on 

 the sidewalk so that customers could hardly en- 

 ter 'either store. 



To be continued, if the editor permits. 



Marejigo. 111. C. C. Millp^k. 



[Then>. now, doctor, your logic has mixed us 

 all up: in fact, we've almost forgotten on which 

 side of the fence we were. To tell the truth, we 

 tried to be on the fence. At all events, we shall 

 not try to collect ourselves till we hear from you 

 again on the subject.] 



THE NE"W CRANE SMOKER. 



rrS CONSTRUCTION, AND HOW IT CAMK TO KK 

 INVENTED. 



For many years I have felt that there was 

 need of a better smoker than any now offered 

 in our bee-journals. Broken springs, burned 

 bellows leather, clogged blast-tubes, burnt 

 clothing from sparks that escaped from the 

 base of tlii' lire-barrel, a large hive containing 

 a good colony of bees burned up, the scarred 

 trunk and limbs of an apple-tree beneath which 

 it stood, and, above all. the constant feeling 

 that followed me that I ought to get a larger 

 supply of smoke with a stronger blast for the 

 efTorl I made, set me to thinking whether a 

 better smoker could not be made. As the 

 smoker is the most important tool of the api- 

 arist, it is very desirable to have it as near pi'r- 

 fect as possible. Even if it costs a little more 

 at first, the time saved will soon pay the differ- 

 ence. Not only do we want an instrument that 

 will noteasily get out of repair or scatter sparks, 

 but we want one that will give a large or small 

 volume of suioke at the will of the operator. 



Some years ago I constructed a smoker with 

 two leather valves, the upper one placed in the 

 mouth of a wooden air-flue connecting with the 

 base of the fire-barrel. While this smoker 

 seemed to give me more smoke, and a stronger 

 blast, than any other I had seen, it did not fully 

 satisfy me. Having to make some new ones 

 last winter, I began anew to study the whole 

 question, giving it more time and thought than 

 I had before b(!en able to do. I made a great 

 variety of valves and connecting- flues. What 

 I wanted was a smoker easy to operate, that 

 would not readily clog with soot or creosote, or 

 get out of Hipair, and that would give the 

 strongest blast and volume of smoke possible. 

 The results of my ellorts are before you. 



A .3-inch barrel is fastened to a GxS-inch bel- 

 lows, by two pieces of K-inch hoop iron. Each 

 piece is lient about K way around the barrel, 

 and fastened by wire, and then bent at such an 

 angle as to give the greatest strength, and then 

 bolted to the bellows. The bellows springs are 

 on till' outside, one on each side of the bellows, 

 and fastened by metal clasps, and can be re- 

 moved at will, and made stronger or weaker to 

 fit the hand of the opiM'ator. They are so made 

 that it may be said they will neither break nor 

 w<'ar out. For my own u.se I fasten a hook to 

 the small end of the bellows between the springs 

 to hang the smoker to the edge of the hive 

 while at work, and find it very convenient. 



