340 



IHE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



For the American Bee Journal. 



Priority of Location. 



JAMES HEDDON. 



I am glad that I started the investi- 

 gation of tliis subject. Tlie more glad 

 am I, because that it is one of great 

 interest to the honey-producers of the 

 near future. All that the earnest and 

 honest are seeking in tliis discussion, 

 is to get a clear, general understand- 

 ing ot justice in the matter. 



On page oil, Mr. Pond says, that in 

 my reply to his article upon this sub- 

 ject, I " nowhere touch his position." 

 Has he changed his position, since 

 seeing that the practical honey-pro- 

 ducers of the country have grown 

 wise faster than he has, or he supposed 

 they had i* In order to discover that 

 his "position" was to tear down 

 my first claims upon this subject, read 

 both articles. He set up a position, 

 not of claims of priority, but actual 

 ownership of nectar ; that a poor man 

 was "selfish," if he did not wish to 

 have a rich one divide the honey field 

 with him ; that professional amateurs 

 had discovered most of the needs of 

 the practical honey-producers, etc. 



I thought I understood these posi- 

 tions ; that they were weak, and I an- 

 swered them. I think Mr. Pond has 

 misunderstood me in referring to his 

 being a lawyer. I bad not the least 

 idea of throwing a crumb at Mr. P.'s 

 intellectual qualifications by mention- 

 ing his law-practice. The brightest 

 ones, like the brightest apiarists, as a 

 rule, make their business a specialty. 

 What I meant was, that he who devot- 

 ed all his mental or physical energies 

 to the theory and practice of apicult- 

 ure, and who must support himself 

 and family from the profits of that 

 business, would be most apt to have 

 correct ideas upon the subject. 



Mr. Pond, in using the term "right," 

 forgets to prefix it with the word 

 " moral," or " intellectual." We well 

 know that all have and should have a 

 legal " right " to locate where they 

 please ; hence the greater necessity for 

 knowledge regarding this question, 

 which is the very purpose of the pres- 

 ent agitation. 



It seems to me that the rest of Mr. 

 Pond's arguments are like this last 

 one, regarding "the butcher, the 

 baker, and the candlestick maker." 

 The fewer butchers and bakers we 

 have in a town (below a certain num- 

 ber), the less the competition, and the 

 worse for the buyers ; because butch- 

 ers and bakers (unlike honey-produ- 

 cers) are selfish, and want all they can 

 get for bread and meat. They have 

 no amateurs to tell them how wrong 

 this selfishness is, in this communistic 

 world where hardly any one looks 

 much to his individual interest. 



But in the light of our jealously 

 watching the best interests of the con- 

 sumer, it is. with us, very different 

 from the "butcher and baker;" for 



any invention, or aught else ; take the 

 honey e.xtractor for instance, which 

 enables us to produce honey more 

 cheaply— gives it to the consumer cor- 

 respondingly cheaper. 



As we increase the number of well- 

 gathered honey-fields, we lower the 

 price of honey, redounding to the in- 

 terest of the consumer. And in pro- 

 portion, as we increase the number of 

 apiarists in any given area or field, 

 making the product cost each bee- 

 keeper more than it would did he en- 

 joy the entire field alone, we are 

 working against the interest of honey 

 consumers, as well as the producers, 

 in this divided field. 



Mr. Doolittle does not mention the 

 basic principle of my former article ; 

 let me repeat it : We believe from our 

 experience, observation, and reading, 

 that some number of colonies will 

 overstock a field ; i. e., that there is a 

 limit to the number placed in that field 

 for profit. These can be owned and 

 managed much more cheaply by one 

 apiarist than by two ; and one apiarist 

 can manage them more profitably in 

 one Held than in two, provided that 

 one is not overstocked. 



I believe that the future price of 

 honey will be regulated by the average 

 cost of production ; that he who pro- 

 duces at maximum cost, will fail ; and 

 he who produces at minimum cost, 

 will succeed. 



If we leave all legal " rights " to the 

 field outof the question, then, for argu- 

 ment, throw out moral " rights." Can 

 you not see that if all coming apiarists 

 were properly educated upon this sub- 

 ject, there would be no division of 

 fields, or need for this discussion V 



Regarding personal experience, Mr. 

 D. must take into consideration 

 ■several facts which are not applicable 

 to the future: 1. Beekeeping is well- 

 nigh a specialty with him ; he has it 

 " on the brain;" his neighboring farm- 

 ers did not. About the time he had run 

 in, they had run out. Bee-culture was 

 changing from the old to the new sys- 

 tem. He changed with it — they did 

 not. In times and under conditions 

 like that, he certainly had a right to 

 go to keeping bees in that field ; and 

 his experience is only another evidence 

 of the " survival of the fittest." 



In regard to his chapter No. 2, where 

 he has helped neighbors into business, 

 he did just what I have done several 

 times. His neighbor succeeded prob- 

 ably because he kept a comparatively 

 small number of colonies in a field 

 which was, no doubt, much more diffi- 

 cult to overstock than mine or the 

 most of other fields. His honey-flow 

 coming less continuously and more 

 bountifully, makes it difficult to over- 

 stock. 



I am beginning, this spring, with 

 something over 200 colonies in each of 

 two apiaries, and I do not believe that 

 any second party can make apiculture 

 profitable in either of these fields. If 

 I am mistaken, I heartily wish I could 

 be convinced of it ; for then I would 

 not sell a colony until I could start in 

 each field with 400 colonies, spring 

 count. Every additional colony that 

 I keep, I can manage some cheaper 

 than any one of the preceding num- 

 ber. 



One would imply, by one of Mr. D.'s 

 sentences, that if one did start in my 

 field, I would be his enemy. By no 

 means. Three or four have tried this, 

 during the past 1") years. Because I 

 had opposition, which might poison 

 some minds, I took special pains to be 

 courteous and friendly, and did all I 

 could to assist them. Each made an 

 ignominious failure, never producing 

 one pound of honey that did not cost 

 more than twice as much as it would 

 bring. 



Among intelligent and energetic 

 apiarists, some are more successful 

 than others, and perhaps would be so 

 even in the same field ; but there is 

 not enough difference for any man to 

 run out another of this class, who al- 

 ready has a good start in the business. 

 There is no man whose energy and in- 

 telligence we need fear, who will be so 

 weak as to attempt to do such an 

 absurd thing. Capital has too much 

 judgment and acquisitiveness behind 

 it, to take so rash a step. 



^lessrs.Doolittle and Clarke concede 

 that my ideas on this subject, with 

 certain modifications, are correct. I 

 have little faith in any pretention, in 

 the line of apicultural missionary 

 work. Bee-keepers like others should 

 do business upon business principles. 

 The intelligent apiarist does not ex- 

 pect, and will not accept of something 

 for nothing. A\'e do not want charity ; 

 we want honesty and justice. Give us 

 the latter and we will never need the 

 former. 



Mr. Doolittle and myself seem to be 

 " odd sheep " in the apicultural field. 

 He is the only apiarist who depends 

 upon honey alone for his support, 

 who has a passion for " gushing." The 

 latter, however, seems to be dying out 

 in him. I am not sure but that I am 

 almost, or quite, the only one whose 

 financial interests are as great in sup- 

 plies, as in the production of honey, 

 and who is trying to brake the wheel 

 of overdone apiculture. This may, 

 perhaps, be accounted for upon the 

 grounds that each thinks he is follow- 

 ing truth, and enjoys her sweet fra- 

 grance more than dollars. Let us trust 

 that this is so. 



My friend and antagonist, W. F. 

 Clarke, is a hard man to handle, even 

 though he is wrong. His experience 

 in discussion, literature and the world; 

 his terse expression and vigorous, 

 pointed thought, together with little 

 experience as a modern apiarist, and 

 never having a necessary concern in 

 the interestsof honey- producers, makes 

 it very difficult to set him aright. Mr. 

 Clarke should not claim better judg- 

 ment in regard to the honey-yielding 

 capacity of my own locality, than I 

 have, after watching the results in it 

 for 1-5 years. I ought not to be "over- 

 sensitive" in regard to matters in 

 which my bread-and-butter interests 

 are so evenly divided. I feel that I 

 am not. I detest "monopoly," and I 

 see no monopolizing spirit in trying 

 to arrange matters so that honey-pro- 

 ducers can sell their honey cheap (for 

 they will have to), and yet be able to 

 decently provide for their families. 



Mr. Clarke, having such great faith 

 in my field, congratulates me on the 

 comforting fact that, when I find so 



