324 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



May 26, 



and took the bees away, but the neighbor claimed them as his 

 property, and sued Mr. Bacbman for them ; and the justice de- 

 cided in Mr. Bachman's favor. Then the neighbor appealed 

 the case ; and Mr. Bachman appealed to the Union for de- 

 fense. Being a member of the Union we gave the points of 

 law in the case to our attorney, who made good use of them, 

 and the jury decided in favor of the owner, and the pugna- 

 cious neighbor had to pay the costs — another victory for the 

 Union. 



DECLARING BEES A NUISANCE. 



Mr. W. A. Webster, a member In Pylema, Calif., last 

 March reported that a petition had been circulated there, 

 asking the Supervisors to prohibit the keeping of bees in that 

 place by a city ordinance, and askt us for instructions as to 

 what to do in the matter. We replied with advice, and docu- 

 ments for circulation. By posting the Board of Supervisors 

 in advance about the unconstitutionality of such an ordinance 

 if past, the members were fully prepared to deal with the 

 matter, and promptly denied the petition. Thus defeated, 

 they made trouble in Mr. Webster's apiary by overturnine the 

 hives and stealing the honey at night. We advised Mr. Web- 

 ster to let it be understood that he was a member of the Na- 

 tional Bee-Keepers' Union, and that we would make it liot 

 for any one found meddling with the hives or bees. He did 

 so, and that trouble also ceast. 



CO.MMISSION men's RATES. 



In the case of S. T. Fish & Co., mentioned in my last Re- 

 port, being a disagreement about the rate of commission on 

 several carloads of honey, amounting to over @200 — altho we 

 have written scores of lettes, the important documentary 

 proofs have not been produced on which to successfully estab- 

 lish the claim — several letters having been mislaid or lost. 

 Until these are found no further progress can be made. We 

 regret this, because we have already spent so much time, 

 labor and expense on the case. The Chicago commission men 

 repudiate the contract made by their representative at 5 per 

 cent, commission, and claim that the 10 per cent, they de- 

 ducted is their regular commission. When proof is produced 

 the case can be continued, but not before. 



DEPREDATIONS ON AN APIART. 



J. Kendall, of Blodgett's Mills, N. Y., complained that 

 depredations were made on his apiary in the night, out of 

 spite. We advised him to put up a sign stating that any one 

 trespassing on his premises would be prosecuted — then if the 

 miscreants could be found they would be dealt with according 

 to law, and the Union would help to do it. 



threatens to poison the bees. 



Among the cases which are now on the docket is one in 

 Pennsylvania, where a neighbor refused to allow a bee-keeper 

 to enter a yard where a swarm had alighted, to capture it and 

 take it to a hive — one that had a prized queen. Of course it 

 went to the woods and caused a loss. In this case we have 

 had a voluminous correspondence, as the neighbor threatened 

 to poison the bees, and was otherwise pugnacious. We wrote 

 to this neighbor demanding reparation. What the outcome 

 will be is yet undetermined. It Is not wise to give any further 

 particulars in this Report. 



dispute about honey sales. 



Early in January Thos. C. Stanley & Son, of Fairfield, 

 III., complained to the Union about the sale of some honey 

 shipt to C. F. Muth & Son, of Cincinnati, Ohio, proposing that 

 It be submitted to arbitration. We wrote to C. F. Muth & 

 Son, and the matter was submitted to the following arbitra- 

 tors : J. M. Hambaugh, A. I. Root and Eugene Secor. 



Liong documents were prepared by each party and sent to 

 us, we forwarding these statements to each arbitrator, and 

 having his decision reserved to be mailed to us on a certain 

 day far enough in advance for all to come at once. These 

 decisions were collated, summarized and reported to both dis- 

 putants, who agreed in advance to abide the decision. This 

 entailed much labor in type-written copies, documents, letters, 

 etc., amounting to hundreds of pages. 



The decision was rendered — then appealed from by C. F. 

 Muth & Son — and re-submitted, reviewed, re-affirmed, and re- 

 reported — covering a period of eight months, but the award of 

 $10 to T. C. Stanley & Son has not yet been paid. 



LAWS relative TO APIARIES. 



Reports have been circulated stating that the laws of 

 California compel bee-keepers to remove apiaries from the 

 vicinity of fruit-drying establishments, and restricted the 

 location of apiaries to certain distances from such. Hon. J. 



M. Hambaugh and others wrote to us inquiring as to the dis- 

 tances named, if such were legal enactments. 



It was also reported that bee-keepers were required to 

 shut up the bees during fruit-drying periods. Failing to do 

 so, the bees may legally be enticed by poisoned sweets and 

 destroyed. We were requested to look up the laws and ascer- 

 tain what truth there was in such statements. 



We went to the law office of a Judge of the Supreme Court, 

 and made a thorough examination of the laws of California, 

 but found no law in the Code containing any restriction rela- 

 tive to the location of apiaries, either specifying nearness to 

 fruit-drying establishments or anything like it. Neither 

 could we find any law allowing fruit-men (or any other men) 

 to entice or. entrap bees, for the purpose of destruction, under 

 any circumstances. 



The Judge who assisted us in this search has one of tha 

 largest law libraries in the State, and he assured us that there 

 was absolutely no foundation for any such a report. If any 

 such laws were enacted they would, be said, be unconstitu- 

 tional. 



This is an important matter, and we therefore mention it 

 in this Report. Mr. Hambaugh was a member of the legisla- 

 ture of Illinois, and rightly concluded that if there was any 

 such law " surely something is needed in the way of legisla- 

 tion in behalf of the bee-keepers of California." But such a> 

 law does not exist. 



BEES NEAR HIGHWAYS. 



Many threatened disturbances about bees being kept near 

 highways have come up, and we have answered many letters 

 advising bee-keepers to keep their apiaries far enough away 

 to prevent the bees from being jarred by passing teams or 



Thomas O. Newman. 



annoyed by sweating horses, because either of these may cause 

 trouble ; to erect a high board fence where an apiary is near 

 neighbors' resideuces, and otherwise to prevent annoyance. 

 These matters have caused considerable correspondence, but 

 have prevented many cases of neighborhood troubles. 



PUT A BEE-KEEPER IN .JAIL. 



Frank S. Buchheim, of Santa Ana, Calif., a member of the 

 Union, in September, 1897, was arrested, under Sec. 370, of 

 the Penal Code of California, tor keeping 100 colonies of bees 

 on his premises, charging him with maintaining a nuisance In 

 the neighborhood, averring that the bees ate up and destroyed 

 the fruit belonging to the neighbors, and interfered with 

 laborers who were engaged In caring for the fruit, etc. His 

 apiary and premises cover 7K acres. He built a fence 6 feet 

 high to enclose 24x32 feet. In which he kept the hives of bees 

 during the fruit-drying season, thus controlling the bees and 

 preventing annoyance to the neighbors. But they were not 

 satisfied with these precautions, and demanded that the bees 

 be moved out of that locality. 



Suit was brought against Mr. Buchheim for maintaining 

 a public nuisance, and he was fined .$50 and costs. As he 

 was a poor man with a large family to support, he did not pay 

 the fine, and was committed to jail for 25 days. 



After 10 days had elapst an appeal was taken to the Su- 

 preme Court, and he was releast pending appeal. 



The Union being appealed to for assistance, we collated 

 some points of law upon the case to aid the attorney, and gave 



