GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



881 



George, a youu!^ man cif about .SO or 'A'> years 

 of age, conceived the idea of taking uj) a lot 

 of street waifs from the cities. He had no 

 difficulty in securing this sort of material, you 

 may he sure. Hy dint of hard work he man- 

 aged to get men of means, antl churches, 

 interested. Some cheap buildings were con- 

 structed at I'reeville, consisting of dormitories 

 and other necessary buildings. The scheme 

 was to organize these boys into a " Junior 

 Republic." They were to have a president, 

 vice-president, senate, house of representa- 

 tives, police force, detectives, and all the other 

 accouterments of a well-eciui])ped government. 

 The scheme was carried out, and the boys not 

 only liked the idea of bossing themselves, but 

 actually governed them.selves in an admirable 

 manner. I was told that some of the worst 

 boys made the best police officers. They 

 are taught civil government, given an inkling 

 of some of the great questions of the day, coin 

 their own money, establish banks, make their 

 own laws ; arrest, convict, and carr}- out their 

 own penalties. Contrary to what one might 

 expect, the scheme ha.s proven to be a grand 

 success, both from an educational and a moral 

 point of view. 



I had often read about this institution, and 

 it was a real pleasure to see the thing itself, 

 and to shake hands with the founder, Mr. 

 George, a man whom we must all admire. 



Just as we were about to leave, one little 

 chap ( our guide ) spied a button that was on 

 Mr. Xiver's coat, which bore the w'ords " Sin- 

 gle Tax " upon it. Cocking his eye at the 

 button he turned and said : 



" What's single tax ? "' 



"That's too big a question," said Mr. Niver. 

 "I could hardly answer it now. But I sup- 

 pose vou could tell us all about free trade and 

 the tariflf ? ' ' 



" You bet," w-as the response. 



THE \EW SECTION AND FEXCE. 



Comments and Suggestions. 



BV DR. C. C. MILLER. 



It is not always easy to get at the real merits 

 of any new thing until the time comes when 

 it can hardly be longer said to be new. On 

 the one hand, some are .so enthu.siastic about 

 it that they see merits that exist only in imag- 

 ination; and on the other hand there will be 

 those who think the\- clearly foresee grave 

 evils sure to result from the adoption of the 

 new thing — evils which never come to pass. 

 As an illustration, I may refer to the introduc- 

 tion of comb foundation some vears ago, and 

 a still more marked case of recent date is the 

 drawn foundation. 



Now comes a fresh candidate for popular 

 favor in the shape of a no-bee-way section 

 with its accompanying fence separator. It 

 seems a little strange that so far the only words 

 spoken of this innovation are words of com- 

 mendation. Possibly the time for adverse 

 criticism is not yet. ' Certainly you, Mr. Edi- 

 tor, have presented the merits of the case not 

 only strongly but enthusiastically. If it's a 



good thing, you have a right to be enthusias- 

 tic. 



If you will allow me, I should like to dis- 

 cuss the matter from my standpoint — not by 

 any means from a disinterested standpoint, 

 but from the standpoint of one deejjly inter- 

 ested. To get right down to the bottom, the 

 quest on w-ith me is whether the change will 

 put more or less money in my pocket in the 

 course of the next five or ten years. And I 

 take it that, in the long run, you and I are not 

 apart in that; for in the final analysis, what- 

 ever is a good thing for me as a honey -produc- 

 er is a good thing for you as a manufacturer. 



On page <S17 you enumerate reasons that 

 have induced you to make the fen e and the 

 no-bee way section a part of the regular hive- 

 equipments. That is equivalent to saying 

 those are the reasons why comb-honey pro- 

 ducers should use them. 



Your first point is that, in the long run, the 

 fence separators are cheaper than the old ones. 

 If that point is fully settled, you have pretty 

 well settled the whole question. I don't know 

 that 3'ou are wrong about it, but I'd like to be 

 more sure you are right ; for it is one of the 

 points of most importance. You say the 

 fence lasts for years, while the old separator, 

 after being used a year, had to be discarded 

 for a new one. I confess I don't see why the 

 fence will last any longer than the plain sepa- 

 rator. The old separator wdll last for j'ears. 

 I think you will iind a good many so using 

 them. As a matter of economy, some throw 

 them away after one year's use because it 

 costs more to clean them than to buy new 

 ones I think it will cost as much to clean a 

 panel of fence as to clean a plain separator. 

 If, then, I am to clean separators, and if it 

 costs as much t- clean one kind as another, 

 there can be no economy in the fence unless I 

 can buv it for less price than the other. The 

 fact that it may be still cheaper to throw away 

 the old se]Darators and get new ones cuts no 

 figure in the case, unless it be an argument in 

 favor of the old separators. Now, if we know 

 the price of the fence we can tell whether it 

 will be economy or not. It may be economy 

 for some and not for others, for all do not now 

 use the same separators. It depends somewhat 

 on the super. Some are now using separa- 

 tors that cost •'^4.U0 or more a thou.sand, while 

 others have those which cost ■'-^2.00 or less. 

 However, if there are enough other advantages 

 we can afford a little more expense, as we have 

 done in many other things. 



Carefully looking through your No. 2, I'm 

 not sure I can raise any objection, although 

 only trial can determine whether prettier sec- 

 tions can be produced with the fence. The 

 only experience I have had in that line is with 

 the Danzy super, which alternates the fence 

 with the common separator. In some cases 

 the sections are slightly ribbed opposite the 

 spaces in the separator — not a serious detri- 

 ment, but still a detriment. Possibly this may 

 not occur with narrower spaces, and I have an 

 impression that the sample of fence I saw in 

 Chicago has smaller spaces than have the sep- 

 arators in the Danzy supers, for these last 

 have spaces a little more than J4 inch. Any 



