628 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTtiRE 



hives are usually a nuisance in some respect, and 

 almost always defeat one of the many objects desired 

 in the use of modern hives. They are rarely accu- 

 rately made. This results in the various parts not 

 being interchangeable, and so frequently prohibits 

 desirable manipulations in the beeyard. Many men 

 try to have a patent(?) hive of their own invention, 

 and it has not yet been the wTiter's pleasure to find 

 many that were worth as much as a two-dollar fac- 

 tory-made hive, although many of them with all of 

 their fixings cost as much as six or eight dollars. 

 While it is probable that many improvements will be 

 made in hive construction, and it is not the intention 

 to try to discourage any one with inventive genius, 

 yet before indulging in the luxury of building " a 

 new patent hive " one should conscientiously study 

 the construction of the various factory-made hives 

 now on the market, and consult beekeepers of wide 

 experience concerning the project. 



Hives of equal quality cannot be made as cheaply 

 at home, if labor is counted, as they can be pur- 

 chased. 



Home-made hives are usually of poorer quality of 

 material, and are inaccurate in measurements. 



Unless made to fit Hoffman frames they are of 

 practically no value on the market. They frequent- 

 ly have some features of their construction which 

 require more labor in manipulation. 



Of course Mr. Kindig is authority on the 

 treatment of bee diseases. He covers the 

 subject well. 



The bulletin closes with a copy of the 

 horticultural bee-inspection laws of Indi- 

 ana. 



The National Net-weight Law Again 



as it Affects Comb and Extracted 



Honey 



In our last issue, page 487, we went on to 

 state that the national net-weight law, so 

 far as it relates to comb honey, had been 

 construed to mean by the committee at 

 "Washington the weight of the comb honey 

 itself, exclusive of the section or frame sur- 

 rounding it. We expressed the hope at the 

 time that the effective date for this ruling 

 to take place might be postponed one year 

 hence. We were laboring under the impres- 

 sion that any comb honey on the market, 

 not properly marked, after Sept. 3, 1914, 

 even if packed prior to that date, would be 

 misbranded, and therefore subject to the 

 tines and penalties for violation of the puie- 

 food act. We accordingly asked our Mr. 

 Selser, of Philadelpliia, to see Dr. E. F. 

 Phillips, in Charge of Apiculture, Bureau 

 of Chemistry, and arrange for an interview 

 with the committee to see if we could not 

 get an extension of the time. While they 

 failed in this, they obtained an opinion 

 from Solicitor Francis G. Caffey to the effect 

 that a package of food is not misbrandtd 

 when properly labeled as to weight, if it was 

 put up or prepared prior to Sept. 3 of this 

 year, but that the burden of proof rests 

 on the packer to show such prior packing. 

 It appears that, while the law went into 

 effect March 3, 1913, no penalty attaches 

 until 18 months after that— Sept. 3, 1914. 

 Here is a copy of the Solicitor's opinion • 



Receipt, by reference, is acknowledged of your 

 letter of April 14, in which you inquire as to how 

 much time will be allowed beyond September 1, 1914, 

 for the disposal of goods packed under labels not 

 showing net weights. 



Ever since the passage on March 3, 1913, of the 

 net-weight amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, it 

 has been a violation of law for packages of food 

 products shipped in interstate or foreign commerce 

 not to be marked in compliance with the amendment. 

 Section 2 of the amendment provided, however, that 

 no penalty shall be enforced for any such violation 

 " as to domestic products prepared or foreign prod- 

 ucts imported prior to eighteen months after its 

 passage." The eighteen months* period will expire 

 on September 3, 1914. 



While the question raised in your letter, being 

 purely legal, can not be authoritatively determined 

 by this Department, and must be eventually settled 

 by the courts, the viewB of the Department are: 



First. That the penalties of the Act of fine, im- 

 prisonment, or coniiscation cannot be enforced for 

 violation of the net-weight amendment in respect to 

 domestic food products prepared or foreign food 

 products imported prior to September 3, 1914. 



Second. That if, after September 3, 1914, packages 

 of food products, not marked as required by this 

 amendment, be shipped in interstate or foreign com- 

 merce, or otherwise brought within the jurisdiction 

 of the Pood and Drugs Act, the burden will be upon 

 the person guilty of the violation to show that the 

 article, if domestic, was prepared, or, if foreign, was 

 imported, prior to September 3, 1914. 



Third. Persons guilty of violations who cannot 

 make proof that preparation in the case of domestic, 

 or importation in the case of foreign, food products 

 was prior to September 3, 1914, will be subject to 

 the penalties of the Food and Drugs Act. 



Francis G. Caffey, Solicitor. 



April 29. 1914. 



From the last two paragraphs as given 

 above, it will be apparent (ancf we reiterate 

 here for emphasis) that the burden of proof 

 trill rest on the packer to show that the 

 article of food that appears to he misbrand- 

 ed under the net-weight amendment was 

 prepared before Sept. 3 of this year. Don't 

 forget this. As it might be difficult to pro\e 

 that fact, and in any event entail consider- 

 able exi3ense, it would be far better for the 

 packers of all food products, including comb 

 honey, to see to it that none of the goods, 

 after Sept. 3, 1914, are left on the market 

 in any State other than the one in which the 

 goods were prepared or packed. It, there- 

 fore, behooves every producer of comb hon- 

 ey, dealer, commission merchant, or an 

 association of beekeepers, to relabel or re- 

 stamp all the comb honey (that is row in 

 their possession, and in the hands of their 

 dealers), showing the net weight of the comb 

 honey itself, exclusive of the frame ur sec- 

 tion, the carton, or glass, if it is a l- hissed 

 product. 



When one's honey has already been put 

 up and packed in cartons, we presume it 

 would be permissible to mark out the coui- 

 bined net weight of the section and the comb 

 honey in plain figures in ink, and put in its 

 place the net weight of the comb honey less 

 the weight of the section. Such erasure and 

 remarking rather implies an admission that 

 Uncle Sam now compels an honest weight 

 that was not honest before. But any such 

 corrections will not be necessary if the hoii- 



