1892 



(JLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



88(t 



Can you s«>o any thiii); wnmg, so far. in tlir 

 transaction? Hut tlic Rovt'rnmt'nt nii>ihl say, 

 '• It is truo. the land is wortliii'ss cxi-cpt for bcf- 

 kt'opins; liut soint'dav it may turn out valuable 

 for sonu^tliinp olso. NVc an' willinj,' lo !(>t you 

 iiavc it as you dt'siri'. for iMM'-kccpiii!^ jjuiixiscs 

 only; but in oaso thorc should be sui-li a cbauiri' 

 in tilt' I'oursf of tinu- as to luaUc tin' land di'sii- 

 ablc for fanning, uc rt'scrvi* thf right todisjiosc 

 of the land for that i)urpos(\ still leaving your 

 title intact as a bee-keeper. In other words wo 

 sell you tlie riglit to the MXK) aeres as bee-pas- 

 turage." Would tliere be any thinir wrong in 

 such a transaction? You will see ihat. in such 

 a case, M farmers might occupy the land witii 

 10<)-acre farms, without in the least interfering 

 witii the bee-keeper. 



liut suppose the .')() fanners Mrst occupied the 

 land, neither of ihem having any desire to reap 

 its advantages as b('(>- pasturage, and having 

 bought it with the express stipulation that they 

 were to have no control over the bee- pasturage, 

 would it not be entirely pioperfor the bee-keep- 

 er to buy the bee-pasturage of .'lOOO acn-s from 

 the government? You don't see any thing 

 wrong in that, do you? Well, my friend, if 

 that's all right, why wouldn't it be a good thing 

 for the government to dispose of the bee-keep- 

 ing privilege of the land all over these United 

 States? 



"Oh: that's easily answered." yon say. Gov- 

 ernment can sell only that which is in its pos- 

 session. If it had reservt>d bee-keeping privi- 

 leges when it disposed of its land, then your 

 proposal might be all right; but it has already 

 sold all right and title to the land without any 

 reserve, so it has nothing to sell. 



Yes. that sounds all right; but the " greatest 

 good to the greatest number " is the rule : and 

 whenever it is for the general good, the govern- 

 ment takes possession where it pleases. I have 

 a warranty deed that is suppo.sed to give me a 

 clear title to a piece of land that measures 100 l3y 

 f)0 rods. I think it is as good a title as any one 

 has; and yet I find I have only a modified right 

 in the land after all. A strip two rods wide was 

 needed for a public road, so three-fourths of an 

 acre is taken off for that. True. I can raise 

 whatever crop I please on the land, that does 

 not interfere with public travel, and so can hold 

 the land against all comers for agricultural 

 purposes; but any one who wishes can travel 

 over it. If I should take a notion that, because 

 1 own the land. I own every thing on it. and be- 

 gin to shoot right and left at the bii-ds upon it, I 

 should soon find out my mistake. There was a 

 time when I owned all the birds on the place; 

 but it was found out that the public good de- 

 manded tliat innocent insect-eating birdsshould 

 be preserved, so the law took away my birds 

 from me. saying. "' Let them alone; they are no 

 longer yours."' So you will readily see that, if 

 it should be considered for the public good, the 

 same public would not hesitate to lay its hand 

 on all the bee-keeping interests in the land and 

 control tliem. But. without further pursuing 

 this line of thought. I want to repeat to you a 

 little conversation I had the other day with my 

 friend Bangs. We liad b< I'u talking this matter 

 over, and finally Bangs said. '• I tell you, it's no 

 use talking ; you caJi'l make things any ditl'er- 

 ent from what they are; and that notion that, 

 by some hocuspocus, you can let one man own a 

 piece of land and yet not be allowed to keep all 

 the bees on it he uleases. is all Doppycock." 



1 saia, "Bangs, wouia you mind answering a 

 few^ questions? " 



"Of course not.'" said he; " fire away all the 

 questions you like." 



" Well."" said I. " please tell me who owns the 

 nectar distilled by the flowers on my place".'" 



"Well, now,'" said Bangs, "I didn't know you 



had a distillery on your place; but if you mean 

 the sweet that's in the clover-blows, why, of 

 course that's yours, just the same as every thing 

 on the place."' 



" Do you tiiink your bees ever work on my 

 (lowers?"' said I. 



'• I reckon they do," said Bangs. "'They say 

 liees woik two or tliree miles from home, and 

 mine are only half a mile ofT." 



■' Sup|)ose i should put out some poison to kill 

 your bees." 



'■ I guess you ain't likely to do that," laughed 

 Bangs. " It would ki;l more of your bees than 

 mine."' 



" Well. .lack Wilson has no bees, and our bees 

 work on his clover. What if he should put out 

 poisoned syrup?" 



"Look here, now," said Bangs, '* Jack Wil- 

 son ain't that kind of a man."' 



" Why. of coui'se not," said I. seeing I wasn"t 

 getting on any. " But suppose I had no bees and 

 was mean enough to put out poison for yours." 



" Why. I'd show you mighty quick, if I could 

 prove it on you. You'd have to pay pretty 

 steep for damages." 



" Well, suppose I should sue you for what 

 your bees took otf my place. How much could I 

 recover. Bangs?" 



Bangs broke out into a hearty laugh. Then 

 he said. " Why, that thing's been settled, dead, 

 sure, long ago, that bees are freebooters, and 

 can go where they please, so they don't sting 

 anybody." 



" So. then," said I, " I can do nothing to keep 

 your bees from taking my nectar; and if they 

 do take it I have no redress, but must just 

 stand it." 



'* That's about the size of it." said Bangs. 



" See here. Bangs, I thought you said all the 

 nectar on my place belonged to me." A curious 

 look began to steal over Bangs' face. Pushing 

 my advantage. I said. " It seems to me. that's a 

 rather queer kind of property that anybody else 

 has as much right to take as I, and I can't 

 drive them away nor get any pay for what they 

 take." 



"Well now. I declare to goodness," said 

 Bangs, "I hadn't never looked at it just that 

 way before. I never had, for a fact.'' 



"'Don't worry over that. Bangs. Y'ou're not 

 the only one who hasn't seen things straight. 

 I think Prof. Cook was the first one I ever re- 

 member putting that matter in its true light. 

 He doesn't agree with me; l)ut in a convention 

 at Chicago I heard him say. "' It may as well be 

 understood, lirst as last, that the man who owns 

 tlie land doesn't own the nectar on it." Audi 

 think any reasonable person will admit that, if 

 nectar is |)ublic property, there is no reason wjjy 

 the goveinment may not dispose of it in any 

 way that may be most for the public good. And 

 if it be for the general good that bee-keeping be 

 cari'ied on by those who make a special business 

 of it, then it is possibly only a matter of time 

 when there will be no rhore talk about a man's 

 moral right to his territory, but by purchase or 

 otherwise he will have a legal right. In other 

 words, be will own the territory needed to get a 

 crop of honey, just as much as a man now owns 

 the territory he needs to raise a crop of pota- 

 toes." C. C. Miller. 



Marengo, III.. Nov. 11. 



HUMBUGS AND SWINDLES. 



Our readers will remember that we have fre- 

 quently spoken of the swindles emanating from 

 J. M. Bain and his aliases from Zanesville, O., 

 or little towns adjoining. He is now receiving 

 considerable sums of money for a new fraud. 



