180 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNALo 



March "HA. 



are subject to man. Further than this explanation would be 

 out of place in a journal devoted to the best interests of bee- 

 culture. I am aware of ray liability to error, but to abuse me 

 because I do not think as you do, when I accord you the right 

 to think as you please, will only show that you are not in- 

 fallible, and will do me no harm. G. M. Doolittle. 



[Again we must say that those who wish to make a display 

 of their deep (?) knowledge of evolutionary and philosophical 

 subjects will have to gooutside of the columns of the American 

 Bee Journal to do it. Life is too short, and there is too much 

 of practical importance in bee-culture, to waste valuable 

 space in a discussion of extraneous and theoretical matters 

 having scarcely any bearing on apiculture. — Editob.] 



The Two Bee-Keepers' Unions — Co-operation. 



BY W. D. FRENCH. 



The United States Bee-Keepers' Union and the National 

 Bee-Keepers' Union are nearly the same in name, and both 

 are inadequate to meet the demands or actual necessities of 

 bee-keepers. 



Now, if petty differences are at rest, and tranquillity pre- 

 dominates over personal bickering, we may feel more at lib- 

 erty to express ourselves in regard to our desires relative to 

 co-operation, amalgamation, or mingling together all bee- 

 keepers. We must be mindful of the fact that both Unions 

 have labored to perform what is indispensable ; the old one, 

 by its able management, has performed a wondrous task, and 

 still is moving on the same plane of action, showering volleys 

 of hot shot upon the enemies' breastworks. The new Union, 

 starting on its mission to do good, undoubtedly will succeed, 

 and its duties, as portrayed, no one can gainsay. 



Should both be blended or made one its utility undoubtedly 

 would be iucreast. and yet the most important feature, and 

 ihat which is most vital to honey-producers, is not incorpor- 

 ated in either Union, viz.: 



THE MANlPtlLATION OF THE HONEr MARKET. 



I am opposed to trusts and combinations in a sense where 

 they have originated for the sole purpose of heaping addi- 

 tional burdens upon the general public, by enhancing the 

 price of food or other products, or to place a restraint upon 

 any one physically, morally or mentally, but the consolidation 

 of bee-keepers is not to be clast in the category of such vile 

 institutions. 



Profits arising from the sale of honey should not be dis- 

 tributed except to bee-keepers themselves, but to maintain a 

 proposition of this character bee-people must certainly act 

 together, disposing of the honey-product of the United States 

 under one general management. 



I have many times insisted upon a proposition of this 

 kind, and urged bee-keepers to unite under one organization, 

 not designing to burden the consumer by any additional ex- 

 pense, but to stimulate the price to the producer. 



I would respectfully call the attention of bee-people to the 

 proposition submitted to the Buflaloconvention in IfSit", from 

 the able pen of Geo. W. Brodbeck, of Califoruia, who plainly 

 set forth his views upon this subject, and who very forcibly 

 vented the minds of many. While I am not fully in accord 

 with this proposition in toto, it brings to bear the main object 

 which all apiarists should consider. 



Every State should have its organizations not unlike the 

 California Bee-Keepers' Exchange, which has now been es- 

 tablisht (beyond ;i shadow of a doubt), and has become a re- 

 ality surpassing all anticipations of its founders. 



If every State were as thoroughly organized there would 

 be little difficulty to establish a Union that would not only 

 benefit the fraternity, but would place the pursuit in the cate- 

 gory of one of the leading industries of the United States. 



A Union establisht in the interest of bee-keepers must 

 necessarily embrace the marketing problem, together with 

 the protection of bee-keepers in their lawful rights, the pros- 

 ecution of adulterators, and any other question which might 

 involve the promotion of the honey-industry of our country. 



Agitation of a pure food law, to be past by the general 

 Government and by each State Legislature would certainly 

 bring action, and we would then be fully prepared to meet the 

 enemy, and stamp that nefarious swindle in the mud of ob- 

 livion. 



Now, bee-keepers, will you consider this proposition ? 

 Will you act in harmony, unite forces, blend all elements by 

 burying the tomahawk of opposition, and become united in 



one grand and noble Union for the benefit and uplifting of a 

 demoralized pursuit in which we are all interested? 



I am sure 1 hear some one speak, in which he tells us 

 that such a proposition could never be materialized, for the 

 reason that a sufficient amount of cash could not be realized 

 to transact business in Its infancy. To overcome this feeling, 

 which would seemingly be a stumbling-stone, I will offer (after 

 we get the next honey crop in California) as a starter S-0, 

 and if 100 men will do the same thing, by putting in an equal 

 amount, we would have the snug little sum of $2,000 to start 

 with, besides all revenues which might be derived from mem- 

 bership fees. 



Now, gentlemen, brace up and tell what you think. 



San Diego Co., Calif. 



Report of the Northwestern Bee-Keepers' Con- 

 vention, Held in Chicago, Nov. 10 and 

 11, 1897. 



REPORTED BY A SPECIAL BEE JOURNAL REPORTER. 



(Continued from page 183.) 



SECOND DAY— Forenoon Session. 



After a few minutes rest, during which the members ex- 

 amined the specimen of honey built on the drawn foundation, 

 as exhibited by Mr. Cooley, and the seeds of clovers shown by 

 Mr. Stone, the President said : 



THE NEW DRAWN OR DEEP CELL FOUNDATION. 



Pres. Miller — How many have used the drawn foundatiotj 

 this season ? I count four. We will be glad to hear from 

 those four. 



Mr. Baxter — I claim that I have used drawn foundation, 

 but I have noi used this foundation spoken of here to day. I 

 consider that this is a misnomer, altogether. It is not drawn 

 foundation at all. It is what I would call deep-cell founda- 

 tion, or deep-wall foundation. That is what such foundation 

 was called years ago, when some one iu Kentucky invented 

 two machines for making it. It is not drawn. It is no more 

 drawn than the other foundation is. It is done by pressure, 

 and not by being drawn, and I think it is eenerally understood 

 among bee-keepers, when you speak of drawn foundation, it 

 is the old foundation drawn out by the bees. I have some of 

 that foundation at home now, and partly workt upon by tha 

 bees. That is drawn foundation. I would not advocate the 

 using of this, for the reason that it looks too artificial. It is 

 too much as it was when it was first given to the bees. It is 

 very well to give them a start. Give them the base of the 

 cell, that is sufficient. 



Mr. Moore — I am chock-full of the effect on the consumer 

 of this sort of thing. I have been six years on this ground, 

 and am simply chock-full of ideas as to what consumers bava 

 said to me on this very point. I am thoroughly convinced 

 that this whole matter of foundation, when you use anything 

 more than the merest beginning, is bad, and that is one of the 

 things I use in talking to them. My customers tell me they 

 buy three or four times as much of me, because I say it is 

 pure. My brother produces lots of It, and it is just as the bees 

 build it, and they ask me every day a dozen or twenty of them, 

 " Did you build that, a full, complete comb as I have here?" 

 " Did you build that ?" or, " How did they build that?" Aiid 

 my answer is, " They can't build that. It takes iUO bees a 

 whole summer to gather a pound of honey, and there is no 

 man, not even a Chinaman, that can." I tell you now, if I 

 offer this foundation honey-comb to our customers at 10 cents 

 a pound, and say, " Here Is some the bees built themselves,'* 

 for 25 cents a pound, nine out of them take that. They jump 

 to conclusions. They don't look at these things through the 

 eyes of the bee-men. They think if you cell a little deep you 

 can cell a little deeper. That is the way it is publisbt by the 

 newspapers who want to do us an injury. I have had grocery 

 men insist upon it, and say, "Why, they make it," and they 

 have even named the A. I. Root Company to me as people who 

 made comb honey complete. You can see what the public 

 thinks of it. When you go to making the cell deeper they 

 jump to the conclusion you can make it full depth, and put 



