326 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



May 26, 



THE SPRAYING LAW. 



About the other question, whether our spraying law can 

 be enforced, not much need be said. It is a measure which is 

 highly essential to the well-being of an Industry worth $100,- 

 000 to the State, cases having already occurred in which 

 spraying out of season caused direct and great loss to bee- 

 keepers. It does not In any markt degree interfere with the 

 welfare of other industries of the State. Unless these two 

 statements are proved to be false, I do not see that the author 

 of the assertion has any case. If I understand it rightly, he 

 said that some trees would be blooming while others were not, 

 hence the blooming season could not be defined strictly enough 

 to apply the law. It seems to me this is splitting hairs. There 

 is nothing to prevent one tree from being sprayed, when it 

 has finisht blooming, while at the same time another tree is 

 not sprayed because It is yet In bloom. The spraying law Is 

 in force In Vermont and Washington and the Province of On- 

 tario and perhaps elsewhere, and we have heard of no such 

 objections raised to it. 



But it Is not enough for us to show the emptiness of such 

 strictures. The very fact that they were made causes a sus- 

 picion that a spirit unfriendly to us exists in certain quarters. 

 Last spring it was the Grand Junction horticulturists who for 

 some reason which they did not see fit to impart, opposed the 

 addition of a clause prohibiting the exposure of poisoned mix- 

 tures on which bees will work. We gave way to them in 

 that. Now somebody from the Western slope carries opposi- 

 tion a little farther. We are justified in asking " Why ?" It 

 is not enough that some Eastern slope fruit-man tells us he 

 doesn't know of any reason for discussion among bee and fruit 

 men. We want to know what is the matter with those West- 

 ern people. 



A PERSONAL STATEMENT. 



I have thought that perhaps occurrences in which I was 

 concerned, in both of which cases certain private letters got in 

 the papers without knowledge or intention, may have caused 

 some person or persons who were not acquainted with the 

 facts to assume that such action was intentional, and that it 

 was also done with the connivance of the bee-keepers at large ; 

 and, as an inference, that bee-keepers in general are rather a 

 grasping set, who need to know their place. Such assump- 

 tions, if they continue to exist, as they have existed (and, by 

 the way, I have never received any assurance that they have 

 ceast to exist, tho I should have expected it), have not an atom 

 of truth. Further, there Is not the slightest danger that such 

 assumptions will ever again be even apparently true; for in 

 consequence of the implied ascription of malicious motives 

 which has never been removed, and also because I realize that 

 I have not the necessary business abilities, I have determined 

 hereafter not to do any work for either of our associations 

 which involves any business, except in the way of Informal 

 assistance to committees and ofBcers. That settles that. The 

 opposition must show other grounds for their hostility than 

 anything connected with those occurrences, and it would be 

 well for them to recollect that if bee-keepers can be injured 

 in the eyes of horticulturists by mistakes which have the ap- 

 pearance, but not the reality of injustice, horticulturists will 

 surely be injured in the eye of bee-keepers by the genuine 

 article. 



THE TIME TO SPRAY. 



I am glad to state, however, that in spite of my rather 

 discouraging experience, I suppose that the majority of fruit- 

 men are disposed to be fair-minded and courteous. Mr. A. F. 

 Reeves, the fruit-inspector of Montrose county, I think is such 

 a man. He has made a study of entomology, and appears to 

 be competent. He told me that the spraying law was all 

 right, and a good thing ; tho in one respect only It might not 

 be entirely just in its workings, because once in several years 

 a peach-louse makes Its appearance, which can only be killed 

 by spraying during bloom. A provision ought to be made to 

 meet this exigency. I recommend that the association corres- 

 pond with Mr. Reeves on the matter. Whatever provision is 

 made should, of course, do away with the essential part of 

 the law ; for not only could we 111 afford to have our bees 

 killed by the bushel just at the critical period of their devel- 

 opment, but the horticulturists themselves cannot afford to 

 dispense with the services of the bees in securing cross-ferti- 

 lization, which means more and better fruit ; nor can they 

 afford to overlook the fact that, with the small exception 

 noted, they are simply wasting their spraying material in 

 spraying out of season, because all the common Insects injuri- 

 ous to fruit can only be reacht by spraying after bloom. 



F. L. Thompson. 



Mr. Devinney — No action was taken by the Horticultural 

 Board on the matter. 



Mr. Honnet — While some remarks were made, I cannot 

 recollect anything of the kind as having taken place. 



Mr. Milleson — If anything was said detrimental to our In- 

 terests, I fail to remember it, with one or two exceptions. As 

 County Fruit Inspector I have not met more than one or two 

 who gave any Indication of ignoring the law. Leading fruit- 

 growers have no oppostion to it. It Is almost univerally con- 

 ceded that we have rights. 



Pres. Aikin — I think that no feeling exists. 



On motion of Mr. Devinney, the Association voted that 

 the paper be given to the press for publication. 



A LETTER ON SPRAYING FRUIT-TREES. 



In the hurry of business the following letter from a bee- 

 inspector of the Western slope was not read before the Asso- 

 ciation. It will be appropriate here : 



" I think there will be a strong effort made to repeal the 

 law that we workt so hard for last winter, with regard to 

 spraying during fruit-bloom, and many are making threats 

 now that they will spray while in fruit bloom. I cannot see 

 why any sensible fruit-grower should want to kill off all pol- 

 len-bearing insects (bees included) that so greatly assist In the 

 setting of fruit, and that at a time when they are all he does 

 kill. We will do all we can by persuasion up till that time, 

 and then If they insist -on spraying, we (the bee-keepers) will 

 see that they atone to the offended law." 



A LETTER ON TAXING BEES. 



The following letter from a bee-keeper was read, which 

 had been sent to the Secretary of the Denver Bee-Keepers' 

 Association, who, on account of absence, turned it over to 

 Secretary Raucbfuss : 



" What I am interested In as I suppose we all are. Is the 

 point as to the \c(jal right of assessors to tax bees. All prop- 

 erty is taxable unless specially exempted, i. e., all property 

 recognized as such by law. If I understand the scope of the 

 decision of the Attorney General, it is clearly that bees are not 

 property at law in Colorado, and therefore not subject to tax- 

 ation. It is this phase only of the subject that has practical 

 Import to bee-keepers, for I cannot conceive how we can pro- 

 tect at ta it' that which has no standing at law. Of course I 

 know that we can hold bees, birds, fishes and other wild ani- 

 mals, and the law will not interfere, but in case of depreda- 

 tion by others, what is the remedy? What Is their leqnl 

 value? Can an assessor list for taxation? As I understand 

 it, the right to assess carries with it the right of legal protec- 

 tion, and I am of the opinion neither obtains in our State. 

 Situated as you are where you can in the name of the bee- 

 keeping Interest have a decision settling these points made, I 

 conceive it would be of great value as determining what 

 course bee-keepers ought to pursue in asking such legislation 

 as may be necessary to surround our interests by the law's 

 protection. I believe I, in my former letter, stated that It 

 had been necessary to have dogs made property by enactment. 

 Surely, they are much more readily held, valued, recognized 

 and recovered than bees. I know that in many places they 

 were taxt, but that was in the nature of a license to provide a 

 fund against their depredations, or for protection." 



Mr. Nichols — I am the assessor of Montrose county, and 

 a heavy bee-keeper. I am not posted on the law. My busi- 

 ness Is merely to list for taxation. They have never objected 

 to taxing bees in Montrose county. Yet many bee-keepers get 

 little or nothing from their bees. The commissioners value 

 every colony at !$1.00. I think it is wrong, and that the as- 

 sessor should fix the value. I believe a fixt valuation of colo- 

 nies is just as unjust as a military tax, which was considered 

 unjust at the recent assessors' meeting. A year ago I cut 

 down the valuation of bees and equalized them, calling the 

 best $1.00, some T.'i cents, and others lower; but the Board 

 of Equalization said one colony was as good as another, and 

 placed the value of every one at $1.00. 



Several members thought the county had no right to tax 

 bees. 



Mr. Rhodes — The real question is. Are bees property Id 

 law ? Is there a value that can be recovered ? 



Mr. Nicholas was appointed a committee to interview the 

 Attorney-General on the subject. 



Officers were elected for the ensuing year as follows: 

 President, R. C. Aikin; Vice-President, R. H. Rhodes; Secre- 

 tary, Frank Rauchfuss, Elyrla ; Treasurer, Mrs. R. H. 

 Rhodes : Member Executive Committee, B. Honnet. 



The Committee on Organization and Marketing, consist- 

 ing of Messrs. Elliott, Whipple, Pease, and Lyon, submitted a 

 report which caused considerable discussion. Some favored 

 the agency plan, some that of a supervision by a Board of 

 Directors. The committee's report, embodying the latter plan, 

 was not acted upon, but a resolution by Mr. Tracy was past. 



