.^. 



VOL. XIX. 



CHICAGO, ILL., JULY 25, 1883. 



No. 30. 



Published every Wednesday, by 



THOMAS G. NEWMAN, 



Editor and Proprietor, 



Rectangular vs. Square Frames. 



In this issue of tlie Bee Journal, 

 will be found two articles on the ad- 

 vantages and disadvantages of square 

 and rectangular frames. The former 

 finds an able advocate in Dr. E. B. 

 Southwick, of Mendon, Mich., while 

 the latter obtains competent support 

 by the pen of Mr. G. W. Demaree, of 

 Christiansburg, Ky. This is a good 

 way of ascertaining the strong as well 

 as tlie weak points of each shape of 

 frame; and, in order to bring out the 

 full arguments on each side, we shall 

 allow one more article to each advo- 

 cate, and then the matter will be left 

 for the readers to decide, individually, 

 as to which is the best frame for all 

 purposes. 



We do not intend to take any hand 

 in the argument, at this time, for these 

 two gentlemen are quite equal to the 

 task, and will do justice to the subject. 

 But a few remarks of Dr. Southwick, 

 on page 369, bearing on the editor of 

 the Bee Jouunal, demands atten- 

 tion. The Doctor remarks as follows : 



" I think that the editor of the Bee 

 Journal is as unfortunate as Mr. 

 Doolittle, when he tries to excuse Mr. 

 A. I. Root for such assertions, but I 

 suppose he wanted to keep up the 

 reputation of the editors fortrulli and 

 veracity. I really believe that not 

 one-fourth of those that use movable 

 frames, use what is to-day considered 

 the J^angstroth frame, and that num- 

 ber is silently growing less in pro- 

 portion." 



The point in controversy is the 

 statement said to have been made by 

 Mr. A. I. Root, that " more Langs- 

 troth frames are used than all others 

 put together." We certainly did not 

 intend to offer any excuse for Mr. 



Root, or any one else who might make 

 a statement similar to the above, for 

 its correctiiess is certainly its fortifica- 

 tion. Two years ago. just after the 

 close of a very disastrous winter for 

 bees, the editor of the American 

 Bee Journal requested its readers 

 to send in reports of how their bees 

 were prepared for winter — whether 

 they were wintered in the cellars, or 

 out-of-doors ; the kind of hives used, 

 etc. From these reports a statistical 

 table was prepared, and one of the 

 facts brought out, was that " more 

 shallow frame hives (Langstroths) 

 were in use than all others put to- 

 gether."' Among other remarks we 

 then made the following : 



"■ Those who liave contended that 

 the Langstroth hive is too shallow for 

 wintering, will be surprised to learn 

 that the figures compare very favor- 

 ably for it. Tlius the percentage of 

 losses in all kinds of frame hives is 

 46; exclusive of the Langstroth hive 

 it is .51, leaving only 53 for the Langs- 

 troth, being 8 per cent, in its favor. 

 Again, this report records the results 

 of wintering in 521,330 hives; 211.782 

 of which were in box hives, leaving 

 309.598 for all kinds of frame hives. 

 Of the latter, 195,957 are Langstroth— 

 i.e., shallow frames— and n3..56t of all 

 others combined. We really think 

 these figures settle the matter of ■ the 

 coming frame.' Had the deep frames 

 been snown to have the advantage, 

 the Bee Journal would have been 

 ready to advocate their \iniversal 

 adoption, for it has no desire to favor 

 any but the most successful methods, 

 hives or implements." 



According to the statistics then 

 obtained of 521,330 hives, only three- 

 fifths were in frame hives, and, of 

 these, two-thirds were in the shallow 

 frame or Langstroth hives. In other 

 words— so far as any information has 

 been obtained— more Langstroth (or 

 shallow) frames are used than all 

 others put together ! ! 



Now, so far as our trying to " keep 

 up the reputation of the editors for 

 truth and veracity '" is concerned — we 

 accept the situation. Editors make 

 mistakes as well as other mortals ; 

 none are perfect ; but it is pleasant to 



think well of others' opinions- to feel 

 that they have a " reputation for truth 

 and veracity." We do not endorse 

 the opinions of Mr. Root, Dr. South- 

 wick, "or any other man," unless they 

 commend themselves to our judg- 

 ment ! But we hope never to indulge 

 in uncharitable words or feelings 

 against any one for a frank statement 

 or opinion, and, hence, we shall ex'- 

 ercise this generosity towards Dr. 

 Southwick, when he states that " not 

 }4 of those that use movable frames, 

 use what is to-day considered the 

 Langstroth frame, and that number 

 is silently growing less!" The Doc- 

 tor's statement is so far from the 

 facts, as settled by the only statistics 

 available, that we have here an ex- 

 cellent opportunity to let ''charity 

 cover a multitude " of errors ! The 

 remark about Mr. Root's judging 

 from the orders he receives for regu- 

 lar sizes of frames and materials, is 

 exceedingly thin. If there were so 

 many who use the square frame, some 

 one would surely start a " factory " 

 and supply the demand, as Mr. Root, 

 and others, have done for the shallow 

 frames. 



The Doctor is, naturally, jolly and 

 companionable, and we cannot think 

 he means one-half of all that his lan- 

 guage might imply— at least we 

 choose to take that view of it, — while 

 we imagine that we discover the same 

 "twinkle of fun " in his eye that he 

 discovered in Jiis good wife's, as she 

 removed the stings from his face, and 

 soothed his burning temples, with 

 her loving hands. 



1^ We acknowledge the reception 

 of a season Ticket to the Southern Ex- 

 position, to be held at Louisville, Ky., 

 during the month of August, and also 

 a pressing invitation to attend the 

 Kentucky State Bee-Keepers" Conven- 

 tion, and though it is very ditlicult for 

 us to leave the office, we intend, if 

 possible, to be there at least for one 

 or two days. 



