352 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



May 1. 



small one are impracticable where the quanti- 

 ty and quality of the propolis are such as we 

 have here ; and what is claimed to the advan- 

 tage of extra-large hives so far as colonies in 

 them being larger, so that it will require a 

 less number to gather as much or more sur- 

 plus, and stock a range, is theory if applied to 

 this locality; for here a colony in the spring, 

 as a rule, gets down to about a certain size 

 whether the bees are in a large or medium- 

 sized hive; and a hive not larger than the ten- 

 frame hive gives them ample room to develop 

 what workers they can in time to be of benefit 

 during our main flow. Later some colonies 

 might require more brood-chamber room; but 

 reared then this extra force of workers would 

 be consumers instead of producers ; or, in 

 other words, it would be no advantage, but an 

 expense, to have them reared. 

 Southern Minn. 



[Your estimate of the staples under the top- 

 bar is exactly mine. They add little or no- 

 thing to the cost, and make a very great dif- 

 ference in the general ease and convenience of 

 handling the frames. 



As to the smokers, it is evident you have a 

 cold blast that is very much superior to the 

 Clark ; and if you send us, at our expense, one 

 of the smokers referred to, I will have the 

 same illustrated, and will comment on it fur- 

 ther after having tried it. If we do not like it 

 we will make you a new one embodying the 

 same features, and send that to you. 



I believe you have come the nearest of any 

 one I know of in giving a good reason why a 

 locality like yours would favor a small hive. 

 It is no doubt true that in early spring a clus- 

 ter of bees in a large chamber would have 

 more difficulty in keeping warm than in a 

 smaller chamber ; but how do you reconcile 

 that with the fact that the Dadants are but 

 little south of you? The winters in both cases 

 are practically the same. 



Referring to tight-fitting division-boards, I 

 agree with you exactly. We had them one 

 season. Besides disturbing my mental equilib- 

 rium in trying to remove them, I found they 

 were but little better, so far as the confine- 

 ment of heat was concerned, than the board 

 that has a bee-space all around it like a brood- 

 frame. — Ed.] 



«»»»».• • ■ . 



THE CANADIAN PURE-HONEY BILL. 



Some Statements Corrected. 



BY S. T. PETTIT. 



Mr. E. R. Root:— On page 110 of the Bee- 

 keepers' 1 Review appear some corrections of 

 erroneous statements re the passage of the Ca- 

 nadian Pure-honey Bill ; and as those state- 

 ments were reproduced in Gleanings, page 

 500, 1896, I can not do better than request 

 that you reproduce what is said touching the 

 matter in the Bee-keepers' 1 Review for April, 

 1899, including my remarks and quotations, 

 Mr. T. S. Sproule's letter, and the bill. My 

 motives in writing and pushing the bill were 

 pure, and those charges to the contrary are 

 extremely painful. 



Deai- Mr. Hutchinson : — I need not tell you that, 

 when people get excited or deeply moved over discuss- 

 ing an important matter, it sometimes happens that 

 exaggerations creep in; but in the case here referred 

 to, actual inventions were employed, and our bill suf- 

 fered. We have now all had time enough to come to 

 ourselves sufficiently to let truth prevail. I wish for 

 nothing more. 



In the Bee-keepers' Review for 1895, page 348, the fol- 

 lowing maybe found: " It would help some toward 

 peace if Canadians would cease trying to get a law 

 passed for the purpose of persecuting their neighbors. 

 The sugar-honey law, which has been offered to two 

 parliaments in succession, gives itself away by its 

 wording; evidently not so much intended for general 

 enforcement as for a handy club to hit prominent 

 heretics." Certainly these are strange statements. 

 Comments are unnecessary. The bill below is a suffi- 

 cient answer. 



Then, further along, the writer continues, "The 

 act is so dracouically worded that the most innocent 

 beginner in the land could be put in prison for it for 

 no greater crime than feeding sugar to his starving 

 bees to keep them alive over winter." 



Doubtless, Mr. Editor, some one must have imposed 

 upon the Review. I wrote the bill, and I am not 

 ashamed of it, and I regret that it did not become 

 law unmutilated ; but, to place beyond controversy 

 the point as to whether, when first introduced to Par- 

 liament, it contained the necessary proviso for feeding 

 sugar to bees when necessary to do so for food for 

 them, I wrote to T. S. Sproule, M. P., who had the bill 

 in charge, and here is his reply, and also the bill 

 which, in due course, he kindly sent me. 



Markdai e, Jan. 31, 1899. 

 My Dear Pettit: — [ was most agreeably surprised, on 

 receipt of your letter of the 2(ith inst., to hear from an 

 old friend whom 1 have so often thought of and won- 

 dered how he was faring in life. I need scarcely say I 

 trust our pleasant associations together during the 

 time you were in Ottawa, and the faithful and ener- 

 getic way you stuck to and advocated the 'Pure 

 Honey " question, endeared you to me to such an ex- 

 tent that I can never do other than think in the most 

 kindly way of you. I am perfectly satisfied that, in 

 the first bill, there was provision for feeding bees 

 sugar when required for food; but it is so long since, 

 and memory is so treacherous, that I might be mis- 

 taken ; and to put it beyond contradiction, I have 

 written the clerk of the Distribution Office to send me 

 a copy of the original bill as introduced; and when 

 that is received I will forward it to you, and then you 

 can put an effectual quietus to these untruthful state- 

 ments which from time to time appear in the bee- 

 journals. Yours truly, T. S Sproule. 



(Copy of the Bill.) 



Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of 

 the Senate and Hou^e of Commons of Canada, enacts 

 as follows : 



No imitation of honey, or " sugar honey " so called, 

 or other substitute for honey manufactured or produc- 

 ed from cane sugar or from any other substances 

 other than those which bees gather from natural 

 sources, shall be manufactured or produced or offered 

 for sale in Canada, or sold therein; and every person 

 who contravenes the provisions of this Act in any 

 manner shall, on summary conviction, incur a penalty 

 not exceeding four hundred and not less than one 

 hundred dollars, and in default of payment shall be 

 liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 

 twelv; months, and not less than three months: Pro- 

 vided that this Act shall not be interpreted or con- 

 strued to prevent the giving of sugar in any form to 

 bees, to be consumed by them as food. 



Yes, the bill was offered to two parliaments in suc- 

 cession: but it did not fail because of its faultiness, 

 but because of the malicious and unscrupulous attacks 

 upon it from those within our own ranks, assisted 

 mightily by mixers and adulterators. We have simi- 



