THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



103 



"A word of explanation. As bee- 

 keepers, no doubt, think it a little 

 strange that we advertise and claim 

 to be the inventors of the Boss One- 

 Piece section, heretofore called the 

 Lewis section, we think it necessary 

 to explain the situation. I worked 

 for G. B. Lewis, and Lewis & Parks, 

 as their foreman, for the past 11 years, 

 and in the spring of 1878, 1 invented 

 the Boss section. On tlie first of Oc- 

 tober, 1878, the co-partnership of 

 Lewis & Parks was formed, and they, 

 thinking it a good thing, made an ap- 

 plication for a patent without my 

 knowledge or consent, thinking to get 

 a patent before I would know it, and 

 then let me whistle. I mistrusted 

 what they were up too, but said noth- 

 ing to them about it, but wrote to a 

 lawyer in Wasliington, asking him if 

 there was any way to find out ? He 

 wrote me tliat the only way to find 

 out and prevent them f rorn getting a 

 patent, was to make an application 

 myself. I made an application and 

 found that they had also, and would 

 undoubtedly have had a patent al- 

 lowed them in a short time. Then it 

 was put into interference, and we had 

 to prove who was the inventor, which 

 I proved to the satisfaction of the Ex- 

 aminer in the Patent Office, and the 

 commissioner of patents awarded me 



Sriority of invention March 12, 1880. 

 Tow, after they And they cannot get 

 a patent, they are trying to prove that 

 it is an old thing, and not patentable. 

 I will leave it with bee men to judge 

 whether it is new or old. I propose to 

 have a patent on it now, as it has gone 

 so far, but probably I should never 

 have applied for a patent if Lewis & 

 Parks had not tried to beat me out of 

 it.— James Fobncrook." 



Now, I think it is our duty, as bee- 

 keepers, after all that has been done 

 about it. not to encourage an infringe- 

 ment; if the one-piece does not suit 

 us, let it alone, and use either the 

 dove-tailed or nailed sections. I used 

 to manufacture dove-tailed and nailed 

 sections for my own use and my 

 neighbors at S8 per 1,000 ; I have the 

 machinery now, but will make no 

 more ; for L shall use the one-pound, 

 one-piece section as long as I can get 

 it, made of white basswood, planed 

 and sand-papered on outside and 

 edges for $G per 1,000. 



I have no axe to grind ; no interest 

 in bee fixtures of any kind ; Forncrook 

 & Co. are no personal friends of mine ; 

 I never saw them until about two 

 weeks ago, when I went thei'e to see 

 about getting supplies, etc., for the 

 coming season ; but when I see a fel- 

 low bee-keeper, as Mr. Forncrook is, 

 in danger of being defrauded of his 

 rights, 1 want to let my fellow bee- 

 keepers see how it looks to me. 



E. J. SCOFIELD. 



Hanover, Wis., Feb. 3, 1883. 



To the above may be added the fol- 

 lowing, which takes still another view 

 of the matter : 



I know the Bee Journal is not 

 published for the discussion of patents 

 in general, but the article from Mr. 

 Baldridge, on page 72, may mislead, 

 and needs correction. Any person 



making use of a patented invention, 

 in whole or in part, without the own- 

 er's consent, is infringing, and lays 

 himself liable ; even if a person wants 

 to make an article for his own use, it 

 is not allowed, and a patent cannot be 

 evaded by simply leaving off a por- 

 tion of the invention, as stated by Mr. 

 B. If it could, our patent laws would 

 be no protection to an inventor. I 

 think the two-piece section is an in- 

 fringement on the Forncrook patent, 

 but the question is : Can the Forn- 

 crook patent be lawfully sustained V 

 I think not. Mr. A. I. Root, on page 

 98 of Gleanings, 1882, says : " Before 

 us is a copy of a patent, granted in 

 1874 to H. W. Hutchins, East Liver- 

 more, Maine, for a plan of making 

 boxes of one-piece of wood, precisely 

 like the Forncrook sections, even to 

 the V-shaped groove, dove-tailing the 

 ends, and all. The drawings malce it 

 so plain that it is difficult to conceive 

 that Forncrook's was not copied from 

 it." 



I am not personally acquainted with 

 the party manufacturing one-piece 

 sections ; but I endorse what the 

 editor says on page 73, that the in- 

 ventor is entitled to a reasonable re- 

 ward for bringing the section to the 

 present state of perfection, but I do 

 not like his advance on the price of 

 sections over what others can make 

 them for, just because be has a pat- 

 ent on them. A. J. Hintz. 



Lamont, 111. 



The assertion that the price has 

 been increased since the issuance of 

 the patent, is not sustained by the 

 facts. By consulting old price lists, 

 on file in this office, we find that they 

 were sold before the granting of the 

 patent at from $1 to $2 higher than 

 tlie price now asked by the patentees, 

 and at the same time they are made 

 vastly better. 



Before the patent was issued we 

 were summoned by Messrs. Lewis & 

 Parks before a commissioner, directed 

 by the Patent Office, and for 3 days 

 we were questioned and cross-ques- 

 tioned by opposing lawyers, and did 

 all we could to defeat the patent. 

 With all the facts obtainable, the pat- 

 ent was issued, and now should be re- 

 spected by all law-abiding citizens. 



There are points in all four of the 

 communications that we do not ap- 

 prove, but it is unnecessary to state 

 them— the whole matter must be de- 

 cided by the technicalities of law, 

 and it will be useless for us to discuss 

 a thing we have no power to decide. 

 " To the Law and to the testimony," 

 must the appeal be made — that is au- 

 thority, decisive and final. 



The Queen that ;Did Not Come.— In 



the Weekly Bee Journal, page 54, 

 Mr. O. E. Cooley, while trying to 

 prove that " bees;move eggs from one 

 cell to another, mentioned the fact 

 that he had been waiting for a queen 

 for tliree years from Mr. Alley, but 

 it did not come." This allusion to a 

 business transaction, so woven into 

 the article, passed unnoticed till it 

 was published. In justice, now, we 

 admit the following from Mr. Alley : 



Mr. Editor :— Please allow me 

 space in the Bee Journal to say, in 

 reply to the article of Mr. Cooley, that 

 his claim has long been in dispute. I 

 am not satisfied that he did, or did 

 not, send me the £3 he claimed. How- 

 ever, rather than do him an injustice, 

 the amount was sent him sometime 

 before his article appeared in the 

 JouiiNAL. Henry Alley. 



W ham, Mass. 



Tht' I5ee Journal has nothing to 

 do wii . settling disputes over busi- 

 ness cu.jplications, and we hope not 

 to be troubled with any more of such. 



i^ Many bee-keepers, as well as 

 thousands of others, have been swin- 

 dled by some bogus " brokers," hail- 

 ing from this city. It is the old " con- 

 fidence game" played over again. 

 Some of the " certificates " have been 

 sent to us, asking if we can collect 

 anything on them. Of course, they 

 are worthless, and we would, again, 

 warn all our readers against sending 

 money to irresponsible persons, for 

 anything whatever. The parties we 

 refer to have been doing [a cheating] 

 .business under the names of Flem- 

 ming & Merriam, R. E. Kendall & 

 Co., Charles J. Henri & Co., Cud- 

 worth & Co., and Bennett, Koltzman 

 & Co. The principal man, Flemming, 

 has gone to Canada with many thou- 

 sands of dollars of booty. 



Special Notice.— We will, hereafter, 

 supply the Weekly Bee Journal 

 for 1883 and Cook's Manual in cloth 

 for $2.7.5. or the Monthly and Manual 

 in cloth for $1.75. 



Size of Standard Langstroth Hive. 



—Since reading the article on the 

 standard Langstroth hive, I have 

 made considerable inquiries, and I 

 can find no two factories making 

 them of the same dimensions. If 

 there is a standard size it ought to be 

 duplicated and everywhere used of 

 the same size. Charles Norris. 



Traverse City, Mich. 



It is to be deplored that so many 

 will vary the size of a frame or hive 

 from the standard size, justfor a sim- 

 ple notion. It is high time for a re- 

 form to be made in this particular, 

 and a standard size of frame be 

 adopted and unvaryingly adhered to. 



i^° Several catalogues are received, 

 but, our pages being crowded, notice 

 of them is deferred until next week. 



