THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



761 



must be given to the bees to get just 

 a little put back into these unHnished 

 combs, tlmt even tliis has been mostly 

 abandoned. 



Our last point is in reply to the 

 newspaper statements that were so 

 widespread a year or two ago, to the 

 effect that our comb honey on the 

 market was made by machinery, and 

 that neither comb nor contents ever 

 came from a bee-hive. So widespread 

 was this falsehood, that in our issue 

 of Nov.], 1885, page 738, I oflered 

 $1,000 to anybody who would tell me 

 where such spurious comb honey was 

 made. No one has ever given the 

 information, neither has one ounce of 

 manufactured comb honey ever been 

 forthcoming. It is a mechanical im- 

 possibility, and will, in my opinion, 

 remain so. It is true, bee-keepers 

 use largely what we call '' comb foun- 

 dation;" that is, sheets of beeswax 

 stamped with the impress of the base 

 of the honey-comb. The bees use this, 

 draw out the cells, and fill them with 

 honey ; but as these sheets are always 

 pure beeswax (in fact, a substitute 

 that will answer even tolerably has 

 never yet been discovered), there is 

 nothing really spurious about it. 



I hardly need add, that the above 

 slanderous report in regard to bogus 

 comb honey was very damaging to the 

 bee-keeping industry. It probably 

 obtained wider credence because Prof. 

 Wiley, some years ago, started it by 

 what he termed a " scientific pleas- 

 antry." 



The adulteration of our food pro- 

 ducts is indeed a terrible wrong, and 

 I believe the bee-men are as much in 

 earnest about it as are the dairymen ; 

 and if there is anything we can do as 

 a class toward putting these thieves 

 and blacklegs behind such strong iron 

 bars that they will have to be honest, 

 we stand ready to do it; and thou- 

 sands of us are willing to give our 

 voices, our strength, and our money 

 toward helping to punish the guilty. 

 But let us have charity for each other, 

 and be slow about rushing to the con- 

 clusion that everybody is a rogue ex- 

 cept — Your humble servant. 



The National Bee-Keepers' Union. 



KEPOBT OF THE MANAGER. 



As stated on page 739, the General 

 Manager of the "National Bee-Keep- 

 ers' Union " sent to each member of 

 the Advisory Board a statement of 

 the case against the Canadian bee- 

 keeper, Mr. Harrison, who was sued 

 by a neighbor for keeping an alleged 

 " nuisance " on his premises, by keep- 

 ing bees. The Manager propounded 

 these questions to all of them : 



Will it be advisable for the Union 

 to assist in defending this case in 

 Canada, when the owner of the bees 

 is not a member of the Union V 



If not, what is your opinion of al- 

 lowing an adverse decision to be placed 

 in the law-books of America V 



To these questions we have re- 

 ceived the following replies by the 

 Advisory Board : 



So far as I can judge from the data 

 at hand, I would decide that we, as 

 the Advisory Board of the " Union," 

 liave no right to use its money to de- 

 fend this case, even if it were policy 

 to do so. Our organization has been 

 of surprisingly slow growth, and in 

 the light of this fact. I deem it not 

 good policy to do anything that shall 

 tend to make that growth still slower. 

 My reasons for not defending this 

 case are as follows : 



1. It seems to me that we have no 

 right to defend this case without con- 

 sent from every memberof the Union. 



2. If the "Union" shall defend 

 persons who have refused to become 

 members of the " Union " in times of 

 peace, it destroys the one great object 

 of joining it at all. I believe that in 

 my original proposition relative to 

 forming this organization, I wrote 

 that one of its first provisions- should 

 be as follows : " Provided, however, 

 that the ' Union ' shall defend no 

 member wherein it can be shown that 

 said member joined the ' Union ' after 

 it was apparent to him that there was 

 likely to be litigation in which he 

 would become the defendant, and 

 that in every case arising our Ad- 

 visory Board should carefully ex- 

 amine this feature of the case. It is 

 my opinion that unless this rule is 

 made and rigidly adhered to, and we 

 defend only our own members, the 

 membership of our organization will 

 rapidly decrease in numbers. 



3. As regards policy in this matter, 

 we do not know but that Mr. Harrison 

 will, and is well able to defend his 

 case to the full extent of right and 

 justice. As much as I would dislike 

 to have a decision recorded against 

 us in Canada, or anywhere else, with 

 my present light in the matter, I am 

 compelled to believe that it would be 

 neither right nor politic for us to use 

 the "Union's" money in defense of 

 the case.— James Heddon. 



I have been watching the case re- 

 ferred to, and first of all I wish to say 

 that there will have to be some limit 

 to the operations of the " Bee-Keep- 

 ers' Union." While I do not say that 

 non-membership should always be a 

 bar to aid from the Union (because 

 cases of broad interest may arise out- 

 side of our membership, which we 

 could not ignore without great risk to 

 the bee-business), yet the only way to 

 make the Union strong and efficient 

 is to protect its members as a general 

 rule, and let others bring their cases 

 before the " Union " on their true 

 merits. If I understand the suit 

 against Mr. Jos. Harrison, it is a case 

 of nuisance under the common law, and 

 I do not fear any precedency from that 

 direction. The laws of nuisance 

 should apply to bees as well as to 

 other interests, or operations of men. 

 Bee-keepers should contend for noth- 

 ing more than equal rights among 

 men. While I fear that our Canadian 

 brethren will misconstrue our motive 

 if we refuse to come to the rescue of 

 this Canadian case, I am decidedly of 

 the opinion that the " Union " had 

 better save her ammunition for larger 

 game ; and for the hasty reasons given 

 above, I vote " no." — G.W.Demaree. 



I confess that I am a good deal puz- 

 zled as to what is best to be done in 

 this matter, but I am always willing 

 to do iny part in anything that the 

 majority shall deem best. If the 

 friends deem best to undertake the 

 suit in Canada, put me down for S5. 

 It seems a little discouraging that the 

 editors of the Canadian Bee Journal 

 do not see fit to take any part in the 

 '•Union."— A. I. Root. 



As it now looks to me, however 

 much I might desire to aid Mr. Har- 

 rison, I cannot believe it would be 

 the right thing that he should have 

 the benefit of the funds of the Union. 

 Rather than that, a special fund 

 should be raised for him, to which 

 those specially affected by the same ' 

 laws should contribute the lion's 

 share, and leave the funds of the 

 " Union " for its members. I now see 

 a possibility of difficulty from a 

 source which never occurred to me 

 before. Any person seeing it coming 

 may unite with the "Union" even 

 after the trouble has commenced, and 

 it would be like a person taking out a 

 policy for tire insurance after the 

 torch had been applied to his house.— 

 Dr. C. C. Miller. 



I do not think that the "Union" 

 should now defend cases in Canada, 

 especially for a non-Union man. Let 

 them join. Again, I do not think that 

 a jury trial in a local case would be a 

 serious precedent, however decided. 

 I may keep bees so as to become a 

 nuisance to my neighbor. If so, I 

 should be compelled to remove them. 

 This is the way I feel with the pres- 

 ent light.— Prof. A. J. Cook. 



While an adverse decision in the 

 Canadian courts might affect us in 

 the United States to a certain ex- 

 tent, still I hardly think the financial 

 statement given would warrant us in 

 defending that Canadian suit.— G. M. 



DOOLITTLE. 



In his letter to Mr. Iloltermann of 

 Nov. 10, 1886, Mr. Jos. Harrison re- 

 marks as follows : 



If such men are permitted to obtain in- 

 junctions to restrain persons from keepinjr 



bees, farewell to bee-culture in Ontario 



I cannot say when the final question will be 

 broug:ht up, but e.xpect it sometime before 

 Christmas. The judge submitted these 

 questions to the jury : 



1. Did nearness of the bees cause discom- 

 fort to the complainant in any unusual 

 degree ? 



•i. Did the complainant acquiesce in Mr. 

 Harrison's keeping bees, by allowing him to 

 put 28 hives of bees in his yard before he 

 (Mr. Harrison) found fault with the dirty 

 pig-pen ? 



The judge was with us all the way through, 

 and only submitted two questions to the 

 jury, but reserved the final one to be de- 

 cided before a bench of judges. 



These were the only questions that the 

 judge submitted to the jury, and they re- 

 plied in direct opposition to the evidence. 



The jury knew nothing of the nature and 

 habits of the bee ; only that it would sting, 

 and were prejudiced against all bee-keepers. 



I trust and hope, however, that it will 

 come out all right yet. We have had a fire 

 and I have lost nearly all my bees and sup- 

 plies, about $700 worth ; also my dwelling, 

 barn and contents, $800 more ; so you see I 

 am pretty well cleaned out. I have about 

 60 colonies left thatel had let out on shares. 



