.^*. 



Jfi) (^ OLDEST BEE PAPER 

 1 AMERICA 



VOL. XIX. 



CHICAGO, ILL., JUNE 20, 1883. 



No. 25. 



1 mm 



Published every Wednesday, by 



THOMAS G. NEWMAN, 



Editok anli Proprietor, 



The Standard Langstroth Frame. 



Mr. M. M. Brtldridge, St. Charles, 

 111., sends us the following for publi 

 cation in the Bkb Journal : 



It has been sliown on several occa- 

 sions, by the very best of evidence, 

 that the correct length, outside meas- 

 ure, of the "standard Langstroth 

 frame," is n%, and not 17% inches. 

 The evidence is the 3d revised edition 

 of Mr. Lanestroth's book ; and, I will 

 now add, all sKbsequent editions of said 

 book. As an attempt has been made 

 by some to show that Mr. L. * has 

 stated somewhere, in print, that the 

 •• standard Langstroth frame " is \7% 

 inches long, outside measure, 1 will 

 at present simply deny the truth of 

 such an assertion. And, while I am 

 on this subject, I may as well also 

 deny that Mr. L. has given, "in a 

 protninent periodical," any reasons ('/) 

 for changing the outside length of 

 the standard Langstroth frame from 

 17% to 17^8 inches. Now, if any one 

 thinks otherwise, please come right 

 along witli the proof. 



. In an editorial note on page 272, we 

 stated that " Mr. Langstroth had pub- 

 licly given his sanction to the frame 

 17% inches long."' And, on page 2.51, 

 Mr. Alves states that" Mr. Langstroth 

 himself has approved the change to 

 17% inches. 



As these statements can be so easily 

 sustained, and to save any labored 

 arguments, we will here give the 

 proof : 



In the Bee Journal for December, 

 1878, page 427, we published an article 

 written by Mr. Baldridge on this sub- 

 ject, in which he says : 



" The outside length of the [Langs- 

 troth] frame is 17% inches, instead of 

 17% inches, as given by Messrs. New- 

 man and Root. This is an important 

 mistake, as it destroys the inter- 

 changeableness of the frames." 



Desiring to have Mr. Langstroth 

 decide the point, we sent him an ad- 

 vanced proof sheet of the article, for 

 his decision. His answer was un- 

 equivocal, and as follows : 



•' Mr. Baldridge is in error in sup- 

 posing that such slight variations as 

 he notices, destroy the iuterchangea- 

 bleness of the frames. Considering 

 the accuracy which may be obtained 

 in making the frames stiff and per- 

 fectly square, I prefer ilte measurements 

 of Messrs. Newman and Boot." 



As before stated, we said "Mr. 

 Langstroth has given his sanction to 

 the frame 17% inches long;" and Mr. 

 Alves asserted that " Mr. L. had him- 

 self approved the change." If the 

 quotation given does not " sanction " 

 and "approve" the change, we do 

 not know what language Mr. Langs- 

 troth could have used to have approved 

 and sanctioned it ! 



Mr. Langstroth's attention was called 

 to the change of )4 inch in the length 

 of his frame, from the ligures given in 

 his book, and he promptly endorsed 

 the change, and wrote for publication 

 in the American Bee Journal : " I 

 prefer " it. 



The arguments against the change, 

 and Mr. Baldridge's assertion that it 

 was " an important mistake," because 

 " it destroys the interchangeableness 

 of the frames," were also submitted 

 to Mr. Langstroth, and he immediately 

 wrote the reply for publication in the 

 Bee Journal (vol. 14, page 427), 

 " Mr. Baldridge is in error !" 



If this emphatic language of " the 

 author of the book" and " inventor of 

 the frame " does not settle the point — 

 then it cannot be settled ; and to 

 further discuss the matter is but a 

 farce ' 



The last edition of Mr. Langstroth's 

 book (the fourth) was published about 

 2.5 years ago ; since then, some have 

 thought that a modilication of 3-4 of an 

 inch in the length of his frame was to 

 be desired, and Mr. L. has publicly 

 endorsed that change. Now, there- 

 fore, to ignore this, his latest decision, 



made in 'the light of the ever-living 

 present, and to persistently appeal to a 

 book (be it one ever so valuable) a 

 quarter of a century old, and there- 

 fore, " behind the times," not even 

 hinting at many of the grandest inven- 

 tions and improvements inaugurated 

 during the past 2.5 years, is unpro- 

 gressive ! Such a course is something 

 akin to that of going back to the 

 " dark ages of the past," to define the 

 courses and size of the planets, while 

 ignoring the discoveries of more recent 

 astromomers, made in the light of the 

 present progressive age ! 



Salt for the Apiary. 



The Orange Bulletin has the follow- 

 ing advice about the generous use of 

 salt in the apiary : 



Use salt freely about your hives. 

 Sprinkle a little water with plenty of 

 salt outside, and in the hives, when 

 the bees are troubled with ants. Good 

 salty brine is of much value in destroy- 

 ing moth eggs about hives. Rock salt 

 is good to make brine of, to prevent 

 foul brood, which sometimes destroy 

 whole apiaries, and is to be much 

 dreaded by the apiarist. It is better 

 to use an ounce of preventive than a 

 pound of cure. Use small troughs for 

 the brine. 



Backwardness. — Complaints are now 

 quite numerous about persons not re- 

 ceiving hives, sections and queens 

 after ordering them of many of our 

 most reliable dealers and breeders. 

 The backward spring weather has pre- 

 vented queen rearing, and isasufficient 

 excuse for not receiving queens. And 

 the backwardness of bee-keepers in 

 notordering hives and sections earlier, 

 is the cau.se of much inconvenience to 

 them and others. Many rush in orders 

 for such at the same time (some even 

 by telegraph), till the capacity of all 

 supply dealers is exceeded. This 

 should teach a valuable lesson for 

 another season — to get such things 

 early — in time to prevent the possi- 

 bility of waiting for them. 



