1899 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



365 



Mr. Hutchinson says he has a belief that 

 plain sections and separators lead to a more 

 perfect filling of the sections ; but he thinks 

 the mere fact that the section is the same 

 width all round, can rot have a bearing on 

 the question. Very true. I have tried sev- 

 eral times to explain that I did not indorse 

 any such notion ; but still there are some who 

 seem to believe that I claim that, because a 

 section is plain, it will be better filled. As I 

 point out elsewhere, a bee-way section can be 

 made so it will be just as well filled as a plain 

 one ; but mark this — granting that both are 

 equally well filled, a plain section will look 

 the plumper, because the honey goes almost 

 clear out to the edge of the wood. And then 

 there is the fact that plain sections take less 

 room in shipping-cases ; take less lumber ; 

 and had it not been for the fact that lumber 

 has advanced so sharply all over the country, 

 they would probably have sold for less money 

 than the beeway sections. 



Referring to Mr. Daggett's statement, I 

 would say that the average non separator case 

 is very poorly adapted to securing good filling, 

 for the reason that there are transverse parti- 

 tions in the super. As Mr. Hutchinson points 

 out, it i^ lateral communication that really is 

 the factor in the matter. So I can't see that 

 this argument has any weight as against plain 

 sections. 



THE NEW YORK FOUL-BROOD LAW AS RECENT- 

 LY AMENDED. 



The following, with reference to the pass- 

 age of the foul brood law in New York, will 

 explain itself: 



Mr. E. R. Root: — I hand you herewith a copy of the 

 New- York foul-brood law, recently passed by the leg- 

 islature and approved by the Governor. After thor- 

 oughly canvassing the situation we were advised and 

 concluded to amend the ol i law as we have done, be- 

 lieving it would be just as good and much easier to ac- 

 complish than the securing of an entirely new law. 

 This conclusion, so far, has been justified in part in 

 the fact that our bill amending the old law passed the 

 legislature, was approved by the Governor, and be- 

 came a law in just twenty days from the time it was 

 introduced. 



Although entitled an act amending Chapter 338, 

 Laws of 1893, " relative to prevention of disease 

 among bees," it is practically a new law, there being 

 only four lines of the old law left (the first four lines, 

 section 80). 



On comparison you will find it embodies many de- 

 sirable features of the celebrated Wisconsin law ; 

 those not embodied in the amendment are already 

 provided for in Article I. Sectioh*2 of this same chap- 

 ter (338, Laws 1893, known as the Agricultural Law) 

 which authorizes the Comnii.'-sioner of Agriculture to 

 fix the compensation of his agents and other persons 

 employed by him, and " such compensation with their 

 necessary expenses shall be paid on his certificate by the 

 treasurer on the warrant of the comptroller," no 

 matter whether such expenses are two dollars or two 

 thousand dollars annually, more or less. 



No special appropriation was necessary. This is an 

 exception to your rule, page 233, where you say, "A 

 law without these essential features is like the play of 

 Hamlet with Hamlet left out." With us this was very 

 important. Being a part of the agricultural law, a 

 special appropriation was not necessary, and certainly 

 not desirable if it could he avoided, as in this State 

 the constitution requires that all appropriations must 

 be paid within two years next after the passage of the 

 Act; hence all appropriations must be continued or 

 revived annually. 



New York bee-keepers are grateful to all those leg- 

 islators who aided in the passage of the bill; but to the 

 Hon. Jean E- Burnett, of Canandaigua, N. Y., who in- 

 troduced the bill, is due the credit for the prompt and 

 successful manner in which it was passed. 



Chapinville, N. Y., Apr. 15. W. F. Marks. 



(Chapter 223, Laws of 1899.) 

 AN ACT to amend chapter three hundred and thirty- 

 eight of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety- 

 three, entitled, 'An act in relation to agriculture, 

 constituting f-rticles one, two, three, four, five, six, 

 seven, and eight of the general laws," relative to 

 prevention of disease among bees. 

 The People of the State of New York, represented in 

 Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows : 



Sec/ion i. Section eighty of chapter three hundred 

 and thirty-eight of the laws of eighteen hundred and 

 ninety-three, is hereby amended so as to read as fol- 

 lows : 



§ 80 The prevention of diseases among bees. — No 

 person shall keep in his apiary any colony of bees af- 

 fected with a contagious malady known as foul brood; 

 and every bee-keeper, when he becomes aware of the 

 existence of such disease among his bees, shall imme- 

 diately notify the commissioner of agriculture of the 

 existence of such disease. 



\ 2. Section eighty-one of said act is hereby amend- 

 ed so as to read as follows ; 



Sec. 81. Duties of the commissioner. — The commis- 

 sioner of agriculture shall immediately, upon receiv- 

 ing notice of the existence of foul brood among bees 

 in any locality, send some competent person or per- 

 sons to examine the apiary or apiaries reported to 

 him as being affected, and all the other apiaries in the 

 immediate locality of the apiary or apiaries so report- 

 ed; if foul brood is found to exist in them, the person 

 or persons so sent by the commissioner of agriculture 

 shall give the owners or caretakers of the diseased 

 apiary or apiaries full instructions how to treat said 

 cases. The commissioner of agriculture shall cause 

 said apiary or apiaries to be visited from time to time 

 as he may deem best; and if, after proper treatment, 

 the said bees shall not be cured of the disease known 

 as foul brood, then he may cause the same to be de- 

 stroyed in such manner as may be necessary to pre- 

 vent the spread of the said disease. For the purpose 

 of enforcing this act, the commissioner of agriculture, 

 his agents, employees, appointees, or counsel, shall 

 have access, ingress, and egress, to all places where 

 bees or honey or appliances u^ed in apiaries may be, 

 which it is believed are in any way affected with the 

 said disease of foul brood. No owner or caretaker of 

 a diseased apiary, honey, or appliances shall sell, bar- 

 ter, or give away any bees, honey, or appliances from 

 said diseased apiary, or expose other bees to the dan- 

 ger of said disease, nor refuse to allow the said com- 

 missioner of agriculture, or the person or persons ap- 

 pointed by him' to inspect said apiary, honey, or ap- 

 pliances, and do such things as the said commissioner 

 of agriculture or the pers-on or persons appointed by 

 him shall deem necessary for the eradication of said 

 disease of foul brood. Any person who disregards or 

 violates any of the provisions of this section is guilty 

 of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of 

 not less than thirty dollars nor more than one hun- 

 dred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail 

 for not less than one month nor more than two 

 months, or by both fine and imprisonment 

 I 3. This act shall take effect immediately. 



In view of the fact that there was already a 

 special appropriation for contingencies of this 

 kind, the law as amended is better than some- 

 thing after the Wisconsin meisure. If I un- 

 derstand it, it all lies with the Commissioner 

 of Agriculture, who immediately, upon com- 

 plaint, shall appoint some competent person 

 to investigate, with power to suppress the 

 ravages of the disease. In the case of the 

 Wisconsin law, the majority of the members 

 of the bee-keepers' societies must ask the 

 Governor to appoint some competent person. 



The following, from Thos. G. Newman, will 

 explain itself: 



Mr. Root: — On page 299 of Gleanings for April 1.5 

 it is stated that I have made " demands" as a condi- 

 tion of amalgamation of the two Unions, and that 

 these are never likely to be assented to by General 

 Manager Secor, and there the matter rests, etc. This 

 is news to me. I have never made any " demands " in 

 that line, and call for the proof . 



Thos. G. Newman, 



San Francisco, Cal., Apr. 24. General Manager. 



