200 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



As I have never seen it, I can only 

 judge of it from his own published 

 description, and the claims tiled in 

 the United States Patent Office. From 

 these. I find that it is a shallow outer 

 case, with either a fixed or movable 

 bottom-board, capable of being tiered 

 up to any desired height, with holes 

 in the sides in which to place screws 

 for the purpose of keying up either 

 brood or section frames in order that 

 the whole may be reversed without 

 displacing the contents ; this case 

 being made of stock of varying thick- 

 ness. The brood department of this 

 hive contams eight close-ended 

 frames (but no special claim is made 

 in regard lo that particular number). 

 Each outer case is like every other, 

 and is intended that all shall be exact 

 duplicates ; the cases intended for 

 surplus storage are tilled with sections 

 either in wide frames when used for 

 surplus comb honey, or with ordinary 

 brood-frames when used for extract- 

 ing. There are some other peculiarities 

 connected with this hive, such as a 

 slatted honey-board, a peculiar for- 

 mation of cover, etc., that I believe 

 are .deemed by Mr. II. of some impor- 

 tance, but as they have been publicly 

 described by him. and were put in 

 general use several years ago, they 

 cannot be honestly claimed as new 

 and patentable. 



Now the question naturally arises, 

 what is there new and that can be the 

 subject of a valid patent, in the hive 

 above described ? I say "raKcZ patent" 

 for the reason that while patents are 

 easily obtained, the Government only 

 protects those that are susceptible of 

 being proved new, original and useful. 

 How will the Heddon hive stand this 

 test '{ What is there new in a shallow 

 outer case capable of being tiered up 

 to any height; and how far diflerent 

 is it from the Simplicity hive of Mr. 

 A.I. Rooty The only difference I 

 can find is in the depth (it being 

 shallower), and that the ends, sides. 

 and bottom are composed of wood of 

 different thickness. Does it require 

 invention to make one box deeper 

 than another, or to construct its sides 

 from lumber Jb or i| of an inch thicker 

 or thinner than its ends 'i Even if so, 

 Mr. Bingham has used a shallow hive 

 for years. In what do the frames 

 described differ from those originated 

 years ago by Mr. Quinby'i' both are 

 elose-ended, and both are reversible. 

 What is there new in the idea of key- 

 ing frames tightly into an inner case V 

 Such keying has been made use of in 

 my own apiary for years. These 

 frames are not only reversible singly, 

 but by being keyed tightly in the 

 outer case, they can all be reversed at 

 once. Is this idea new ? Mr. J. M. 

 Shuck has advertised and used an 

 invertible hive for years. His hive is 

 also made with a shallow sectional 

 outer case, capable of being tiered up 

 to any desired height. He uses, how- 

 ever, ordinary lumging frames. 



I need not discuss the matter 

 further now. Slatted zinc honey- 

 boards, with bee-spaces between them 

 and the tops of the frames ; the claim 

 that two outer cases are required to 

 make one hive, and various other 

 peculiarities connected with the Hed- 



don hive, may demand some explana- 

 tion hereafter, but the main points 

 are covered by outer shallow sectional 

 cases, and close-end frames keyed 

 tightly into such cases. 



In the above I have written of the 

 matter as I understand it. If I am 

 wrong or have stated anything in- 

 correctly, I am desirous of being set 

 right, and ready to make an ample 

 apology. Assuming that I am correct. 

 I ask what is there in the Heddon 

 hive, that is either new or original in 

 the details of its construction, or the 

 subject of a valid patent, either singly 

 or in combination "i* The question is 

 not now whether the methods of 

 manipulation used by Mr. II. are 

 better than those heretofore used ; 

 or whether " my friend " or " my 

 students " deem them more rapid and 

 economical or not. With that mat- 

 ter, as I stated at the start. I have 

 nothing to do. I am desirous of 

 gaining all the information I can in 

 regard to an article of trade, that is 

 claimed to be new and original, and 

 testing that claim, by the " state of 

 the art," as shown in the past history 

 of apiculture ; and with my present 

 understanding of the matter, I can 

 see no reason why the wood of which 

 the hive is constructed, or the nails 

 and paint used in its construction are 

 not as susceptible of being patented 

 as the other features described. 



It is unfortunate that bee-keepers 

 are inclined to look upon adverse 

 criticisms as being personal ; why 

 this is so. I cannot imagine ; I, how- 

 ever, can only judge of matters as I 

 And them, and in the criticisms above 

 I have simply made a comparison of 

 Mr. H's details, with those that have 

 been made familiar to us by apicul- 

 tural history. Mr. Heddon can find 

 no fault with courteous criticisms, 

 and the questions asked in this article, 

 if answered correctly, make the criti- 

 cism just ; if not, correct answers 

 given to them will set the public 

 right by furnishing such information 

 as is called for. 



IToxboro.Ot Mass. 



[The Bee Journal does not pro- 

 pose to discuss the validity of any pat- 

 ent — the U. S. Courts are the ones to 

 decide that. Until these Courts have 

 decided otherwise, every law-abiding 

 citizen will respect a patent granted 

 by the U. S. Government. Does not 

 the following from Dr. Tinker pretty 

 clearly answer Mr. Pond ?— Ed.] 



For tbe Americun Bee Journal. 



Sectional Brood-Cliainlier Hiyes. 



DU. G. L. TINIvER. 



The remarks of Mr. Heddon. on 

 page 165. call for an explanation, 

 although I do not propose to enter 

 into anything like a discussion at this 

 time. The hive I have described on 

 page 153, Mr. Heddon claims as his 

 invention. This claim will probably 

 bring to an early settlement his rights 

 under his patent, and I feel sure, if it 

 is just, it will be finally conceded. 



The general welfare of the frater- 

 nity, unalloyed by acrimonious strife 

 and contention, would seem to de- 

 mand such settlement. I should be 

 pleased to see the harmony and good- 

 will that prevailed at the late Detroit 

 Convention spread like a contagion 

 among beekeepers until all ill-will 

 and disaffection is swallowed up in 

 kindness, and adispositionto do right 

 and accord exact justice without 

 prejudice and without reserve. Let 

 us be a great brotherhood of bee- 

 keepers, not only in name but in fact. 



Now the question in every mouth 

 is. what are Mr. Heddon 's rights re- 

 garding his new hive and system of 

 management V In the past few weeks 

 I have had lengthy correspondence 

 with him on this subject, and find him 

 disposed to do and to ask only what I 

 am prepared to acknowledge is just 

 and right. 



First, he has invented a new hive 

 of original features and original con- 

 struction, having a sectional brood- 

 chamber in horizontal divisions, each 

 being invertible and provided with 

 movable-comb frames. His patent 

 covering the above construction is 

 undoubtedly valid. 



2. In his book. " Success in Bee- 

 Culture." he has presented a new 

 system of management involving 

 what have every wliere been conceded, 

 ■' my principles " of procedure in bee- 

 culture. 



3. Although he may not be able to 

 control by patent every construction 

 of hives whereby his new principles 

 may be carried out in practice, still, 

 all will feel, who do practice them, 

 that tliey are profiting by what he has 

 promulgated, if not directly by what 

 he has invented. 



The above are simple facts that 

 cannot well be denied, and under this 

 circumstance it only remains for each 

 one to decide if they shall make use 

 of the new system or not. If they 

 do. it will be only fair to obtain a 

 privilege to use or "to manufacture, as 

 the case may be. whetlier it be a hive 

 covered by Mr. H's patent or one that 

 may be used in the same manner. It 

 is, of course, understood that who- 

 ever purchases a hive of any manu- 

 facturer, purchases the right of use 

 with it ; and as my hive described on 

 page 153 cannot well be operated ex- 

 cept by the new system, I have pur- 

 chased the right of manufacture un- 

 der the Heddon patent. 



On March 15 to 18, 1 transferred five 

 strong colonies into these hives, and I 

 am highly pleased with them. They 

 give unmistakable promise of all the 

 advantages I have from the first con- 

 ceived of such a hive. It opens up 

 new possibilities to the practical bee- 

 keeper, new methods and new hopes. 

 It may cheapen our products because 

 of larger production, but more honey 

 will be consumed in lieu of other 

 sweets, wliile the cost of production 

 will be reduced to the lowest figure. 

 Though we have hosts upon hosts of 

 bee-keepers in the land, I believe the 

 present outlook for their general 

 prosperity has never been so promis- 

 ing. 



New Philadelphia,o* O. 



