292 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



May 15 



not only could cure the disease but save all 

 the combs, no matter how badly t^ey might 

 have been infected. At the time we pub- 

 lished the initial article we said in an intro- 

 ductory note: 



We are not so enthusiastic as to believe that Mr. 

 Stewart's method of cure is going to revolutionize 

 our methods of treatment for foul brood. So many 

 things have looked good in the past, apparently 

 were good, and turned out to be failures after all. 

 that we confess that we are becoming more and 

 more conservative. 



And SO it proved. Since that time consid- 

 erable correspondence has arisen, some of 

 which not only criticised Mr. Stewart, but 

 the publishers of Gleanings, for giving out 

 such a treatment that had not been more 

 fully tested. Two State foul-brood inspect- 

 ors, good friends of ours also, wrote us, ex- 

 pressing regret that the method had ever 

 been given publicity, saying they felt they 

 would be considerably handicapped in their 

 work, for the reason that many careless and 

 irresponsible persons, thinking they would 

 be able to save the combs, would disregard 

 their instructions to shake, and melt the 

 combs and follow the Stewart plan instead; 

 that they would make a mess of it, and keep 

 infection in the locality indefinitely. We 

 replied, saying that possibly we were wrong, 

 but we believed it was the function of a 

 trades journal to place a plan of this kind, 

 that gave us hopes of saving combs, before 

 the bee-keeping world, so that many expert 

 bee-keepers could try it out; for we argued 

 if there is even a possibility of saving the 

 combs we ought not to turn it down with- 

 out placing it before the public. However 

 wise this policy may have been, reports 

 since received from all over the country from 

 persons who had tried the Stewart plan 

 showed that it was a failure. In the mean 

 time we began to get letters from some of 

 Mr. Stewart's neighbors, informing us that, 

 if we would investigate, we would find that 

 his treatment was not an unqualified suc- 

 cess even in his yards. 



About this time we got in touch with one 

 of the foul-brood inspectors for Illinois, Mr. 

 J. E. Pyle, of Putnam. The latter wrote 

 that he had visited Mr. Stewart and that he 

 was given every opportunity to investigate 

 his apiary, and treatment in particular. It 

 is not necessary for us to go into details; 

 but he came away satisfied that the treat- 

 ment was not all that might be desired. 

 We have also a statement from Mr. C. E. 

 Bowen, of Linden, III., who was in Mr. 

 Stewart's employ from April 1 to July, 1907. 

 In this letter he says that he would not go so 

 far as to say that the Stewart method was 

 not a success; but that he and Mr. Stewart 

 treated the bulk of the Stewart bees by the 

 McEvoy method. He also went on to say 

 that he tried the Stewart method among 

 his own bees, but that it had been a com- 

 plete failure in his locality. In another let- 

 ter he says Mr. Stewart showed him some 

 colonies that he was experimenting with, 

 but that those colonies were in a worse con- 

 dition when he left than when he first came. 

 These matters have all been referred to 



Mr. Stewart, who still seems to have unlim- 

 ited faith in his treatment. He says that 

 the reason why he used the McEvoy plan 

 when Bowen was there was because the sea- 

 son was poor; that in order to make his plan 

 work he must have a good honey-flow. 



One or two facts have been presented that 

 seem to indicate that Mr. Stewart had both 

 American and European foul brood in his 

 yard, although the evidence goes to show 

 that the amount of European foul brood, if 

 any, was very small. It is generally admit- 

 ted that a strong colony in the midst of a 

 honey-flow (two important factors in the 

 Stewart system of treatment) will very often 

 cure European ionX brood; but so far no evi- 

 dence in this country has been presented, 

 excepting that from Mr. Stewart himself, 

 showing that the plan has ever been a suc- 

 cess with the American type of the disease. 

 It is but fair to say, however, that Mr. Sam- 

 uel Simmins, an English authority on bees, 

 claims that it is possible for strong colonies 

 to clean American foul-brood scales out of 

 the combs; but it seems quite certain to us, 

 (as we pointed out on page 58, of our issue 

 for Feb. 1st) that his experience relates to 

 the Eurojjean type of the disease, which we 

 are now reasonably sure is the foul brood 

 often referred to by English writers. 



Mr. Stewart, to prove his claims, says he 

 is willing to establish a hospital yard where 

 his method can be tested out before an im- 

 partial committee. But the verdict of some 

 of our readers who have tried the plan and 

 found it a failure is sufficient to convince 

 us that the public had better let it alone. 



We feel that Mr. Stewart has tried to be 

 entirely fair and truthful ; that certain dis- 

 eased combs were cleared up of disease we 

 can not deny; but it is our opinion that the 

 said combs were affected with European 

 foul brood and not the American type. 



In this connection it is fair to state that , 

 a piece of infected comb sent from the Stew- a 

 art yard to Dr. Phillips, of the Bureau of 1 

 Entomology, Washington, D. C, was re- 

 ported back as American foul brood; but 

 this would not be positive evidence that the 

 other disease might not also have been pres- 

 ent. The fact that European foul brood is 

 or was present in Northern Illinois, and that 

 Prophetstown is also located in the northern 

 part of the State, rather lends color to the 

 belief that European foul brood was the dis- 

 ease that Mr. Stewart cured. 



In this connection it was reported that a 

 certain Mr. Stewart put in a protest against 

 the passage of the Illinois foul-brood bill — a 

 bill that would be more effective than the 

 one on the statute-book; but we are convinc- 

 ed from the evidence in hand that Mr. Hen- 

 ry Stewart is not the Stewart who had any 

 thing to do with it. 



We have endeavored, as far as possible, to 

 set forth all the facts gathered from our cor- 

 respondents, covering a period of nearly six 

 months. If we were to publish all the let- 

 ters, the space of one whole issue of this 

 journal would be taken up and then leave a 

 lot more to be said. 



