338 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAi- 



nal. They many be very gentle, but 

 the new cross is rarely so. 



Again, a strain of bees may be un- 

 l)rolific, indolent, and next to worthless, 

 but if the young queens are mated to 

 drones of unrelated stock, the queens at 

 once become prolific, and their workers 

 fair honey-gatherers. 



The above facts have a practical ap- 

 plication to all bee-keepers, and should 

 stimulate them to introduce new queens 

 to their apiaries every year. Thus we 

 shall give eneouragement to our numer- 

 ous queen-breeders, and steadily ad- 

 vance our own interests. 



Tuscarawas County, O., Aug. 4, 1893. 



Donating or Purchasing Honey 

 for Exiiibition Purposes. 



Written for the American Bee Journal 

 BY DR. C. C. MILLEK. 



Friend York : — Dr. Mason and you 

 can settle your quarrel to your own lik- 

 ing, and I'm not going to interfere. I 

 merely arise to make a little question as 

 to one position that Dr. Mason seems to 

 take on page 201, and that is, that less 

 credit is due for an exhibit made by pur- 

 chase through funds appropriated by a 

 State than for an exhibit made up of 

 loans or donations of individual bee- 

 keepers. 



Given two States exactly alike as to 

 their honey resources — in fact, alike in 

 every respect except that the exhibit of 

 one State is made up entirely of loans 

 and donations, and that of the other is 

 made up of purchases made by the 

 State — and I don't see that these two 

 dififeriug items should at all be taken in- 

 to account by the judge in making the 

 award. If not by the judge, then not 

 by others. The question is simply, 

 "Which is the best exhibit ?" without 

 saying how the exhibit was secured, pro- 

 viding all was fair in the securing. The 

 State that makes the best exhibit de- 

 serves the most credit. 



Of course, there is no disputing the 

 credit due to an individual bee-keeper 

 who makes a large donation to his State 

 exhibit, and I would be the last one to 

 attempt to diminish that credit, but 

 when you^omo to consider the exhibit 

 as a whole, I maintain that the matter 

 of donation or |)urc,has<! has nothing to 

 do with it. 



Take the case of the two supposed 

 States. In one of the States the bee- 

 lojepers hold a council, and one of them 



says, "We want to make the very best 

 showing that we can for our State. I, 

 for one, am willing to donate or loan a 

 goodly share of the best I have, and no 

 doubt others are equally willing. But 

 if the right means are used, I believe we 

 can have an appropriation from the 

 State, and thus secure a finer exhibit 

 than in any other way." And if what 

 he says is true, don't you think they will 

 all agree that a public appropriation is 

 the best way ? Fools if they don't. If 

 you raise the objection that these bee- 

 keepers are not entitled to credit for 

 what is obtained through public money, 

 I reply that some one deserves credit 

 for the exhibit, and pray who is it? If 

 the bee-keepers set in motion the ma- 

 chinery that brought out the exhibit, 

 then they deserve credit for it. 



Ten men of one State donate a thou- 

 sand pounds of fine honey. They de- 

 serve credit for it. Ten men of another 

 State put their heads together, and by 

 fair and honest means secure a State 

 appropriation that gets a thousand 

 pounds just as good as the first. Don't 

 they deserve just as much credit? And 

 if the purhcase is greater, then is not 

 the credit greater ? 



PLEASE BE FAIR. 



While I am writing, allow me to refer 

 to the item on page 216. Is it entirely 

 fair to insinuate that Gleanings, for its 

 own benefit. Is trying to lower the price 

 of honey by reporting that the crop is 

 large ? Does Bro. Faylor know that 

 Oleaninrjs refuses to publish accounts of 

 small crops? If bee-keepers send in re- 

 ports only when they secure large crops, 

 and are silent as to small crops, can we 

 blame the bee-journals ? Let's be fair. 



Marengo, 111. 



[Doctor, we hardly think that Mr. 

 Faylor wished to " insinuate" anything 

 as regards Oleanings, though it may ap- 

 pear so. We are very certain that ive 

 didn't look at it in that light, for the 

 publishers of Oleanings we feel are too 

 honorable to do such a thing as is inti- 

 mated. Certainly, any bee-paper that 

 should thus conduct itself would not be 

 working for the best interests of bee- 

 keepers in general ; and if Oleanings is 

 not helping bee-keeping most wonder- 

 fully, where is the bee-paper that is ? 

 Self-interest and selfishness are short- 

 lived in almost everything where they 

 are allowed to rule. — Ed.] 



