THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



393 



dard of the text books, and Mr. 

 Langstroth lias changed his standard 

 frame. It has been intimated tliat 

 " somebody else " changed tlie size of 

 the frame, and then Mr. Langstroth's 

 sanction was " wrenched " from him. 

 If my memory serves me right, when 

 Mr. A. I. Hoot began making the 

 Langstrotli frame, lie sent to Mr. 

 Langstroth for a frame, and tliis 

 frame was used as a pattern. Not 

 much " wrencliing " there. But it is 

 immaterial as to what weretlie causes 

 that induced Mr. Langstroth to make 

 the change. 



But the practical question in regard 

 to this matter is, which is and will be 

 in the majority V Wliere tlie U% 

 frames are already in the majority, 

 and the largest manufactories, and 

 the most of them, the editors of the 

 principal bee papers, and Mr. Langs- 

 troth himself, have adopted this size, 

 what else can we expect than that it 

 will remain in the majority. 



Rogersville, Mich. 



For the American Bee JoumaL 



The Standard Langstroth Frame. 



M. M. HALDHIDGE. 



There is not a particle of " proof " 

 in the two colnnin editorial, on page 

 305 of the Bee .Journal, that the 

 " standard " Laujistroth frame— the 

 only point at issue— is ITfg inches 

 long, outside measure, nor anything 

 of value, when pmperly interpreted, 

 to show why Mr. Langstroth should 

 prefer a frame }4 inch longer than 

 the standard. 



In the December Bee Journai. for 

 1878, page 427, appears an article from 

 ray pen showing that a mistake had 

 been made by some in making the 

 frame 17:^8 instead of 17*8 inches 

 long, nutsule measure, and calling it 

 the standard l>angstroth. Appended 

 to that article are remarks, credited 

 to Mr. Langstroth, wljich do not deny 

 the correctness of my position, 

 namely, that the standard Langstroth 

 frame should be 17^8 inches long, out- 

 side measure, but simply that Mr.-L., 

 at that date, preferred a frame I4' 

 inch longer ! J5ut what Mr. L. pre- 

 ferred, at that time, was foreign to 

 the point at issue, as was fully ex- 

 plained by me in an article on the 

 same topic, on page 163, April Bee 

 Journal for 1879, to which the 

 reader is referred for details. As Mr. 

 L. has never responded to that article, 

 I have a right to assume that he be- 

 came satistied that he did not fully 

 underhand my position when he re- 

 plied, as is clainjed, to my previous 

 article. 



Now, let me examine the " reasons 

 (?)" credited to Mr. Langstroth, why 

 lie prefers a frame "^ '"ch longer than 

 the standard : "Considering the ac- 

 curacy which may be obtained in 

 making the frames stiff and perfectly 

 square, I jirefer the Hoot and New- 

 • man measurements." 



Now, if any one can explain how 

 the Langstroth frame can be made 

 "stiff and perfectly square" with less 

 trouble, or greater "accuracy," by 

 making it simply >4 inch longer than 



the standard, he can do more than I 

 or any one else whom I have talked 

 with on this subject I If it be true 

 that a longer and larger frame can be 

 made stifler and squarer, and with 

 less difficulty, than a shorter and 

 smaller one, and that, for such " rea- 

 sons (V) " simply, we should adopt the 

 longer and larger frame for the stan- 

 dard, then why not adopt the size and 

 shape of the Langstroth frame pre- 

 ferred by Mr. QuinbyV But this is 

 also foreign to the subject— the text 

 being, What are tlie correct dimen- 

 sions of the standard Langstroth 

 frame V and not what anybody "pre- 

 fers," nor what shall we adopt as the 

 standard. 



On page 163, April Bee Jouunal 

 for 1879, the " Ed." appended some 

 remarks to my reply to Mr. Langs- 

 troth, from which I now quote : 

 "Many will vary the size of the 

 frame from y inch to 2 inches just to 

 suit a notion, which should never be 

 done. Nothing is more annoying 

 than to have frames vary just enough 

 to be useless for interchanging." I 

 can endorse every word in that 

 citation. 



I am satisfied that the frame n% 

 inches long, now known to some as 

 the "Root and Newman frame," was 

 never made that length " to suit a 

 notion," nor for any valid reasons 

 whatever, nor for the purpose of ob- 

 taining any advantages over the 

 standard Langstroth, but simply be- 

 cause it was copied after a blunder 

 in the making of the standard frame, 

 the blunder having Hrst been made 

 by old man Blunderer himself ! The 

 pretense that the length was changed 

 from 17^8 to 17^8 inches so as to fit the 

 one-pnund section is sheer nonsense, as 

 Mr. Root made the blundered frame 

 several years before a one-pound box 

 was even thought of — in fact, the 

 blunder was made more than ten 

 years ago ! 



Mr. Langstroth is credited with 

 saying that " Mr. Baldridge is in 

 error." But in what respect V In re- 

 gard to the correct length of the 

 standard Ijangstroth frame V ]5y no 

 means. 15ut simply "in error" that 

 y inbh in the length of the frame 

 destroys its " interchangeableness." 

 Now, is that true V As the inside 

 length of the box that holds the 1733 

 inch frames is IS'ii inches long (see 

 page 381 of Mr. L.'s book), this would 

 leave a space of only 14 inch between 

 the ends of the \1% inch frames and 

 the box. Now, is that sufficient space 

 for a good practical hive V It may be 

 for some, but it wont do for me. And 

 if the frame, as well as the hive, are 

 each made }4 inch too long, the pro- 

 jections of the top-piece will also be 

 3.4 inch too long, and these must be 

 cut off before such frames can be used 

 in a box, properly made, to hold the 

 n% inch frames. So it will be seen 

 that the proper " interchangeable- 

 ness" of the frames is very disagree- 

 able to say the least. 



The 3il revised edition of Mr. 

 Langstroth's book is dated March, 

 1859, over 24 years ago. But since 

 that date there have been several 

 editions published, and, I i)resuuie. 

 one or more have been issued since 



Mr. L. is credited with what appears 

 on page 427 in December Bee Jour- 

 nal for 1878. In the 3d revised edi- 

 tion, and iu every edition of that 

 revised edition that I have examined, 

 full and explicit directions are given 

 for making what has become known 

 as the " standard " Langstroth frame 

 and hive, and I am not aware that 

 any change has been given therein by 

 foot note, or otherwise, in the length 

 of the frames from 17% to 17% inches, 

 nor in the dimensions of tlie boards 

 that enter into the construction of the 

 box that holds the frames. It is true 

 that the book is " stereotyped," but 

 that is no excuse for not calling atten- 

 tion to the change in the length of the 

 frame and the liive by foot note, or 

 otherwise, if Mr. Langstroth thought 

 such change was really to be desired. 

 Now, when a writer of iiiHuence, like 

 Mr. L., "prefers " a change, and es- 

 pecially one of so much importance 

 as a change iu the dimensions of a 

 " standard " frame and hive for bee- 

 keepers, he should not only give at 

 least one or more valid reasons, in 

 case he attempts to give any, for 

 making such a change, but he, or his 

 publishers, should likewise give 

 jiroper notice of such change in his 

 only authorized work on bees, so that 

 the purchasers of the book will not be 

 misled by its teachings. Either this 

 should be done or else the sale of the 

 book should be discouraged by the 

 advocates of the " blundered " frame, 

 which, perhaps, should iienceforth be 

 designated as the Root and Newman 

 " progressive " frame ! 

 St. Charles, III. 



[" Mr. Baldridge is in error " in 

 "presuming" that there have been 

 "one or more" revised editions of 

 Mr. Laugstroth'sbook published since 

 the item from him was printed in the 

 Bee Journal for 1878, page 427. No 

 revision has been made since March, 

 1859. At our request Mr. Langstroth 

 is preparing an article on this subject 

 for the Bee Joubna-l, and one, we 

 hope, that will forever settle this un- 

 profitable controversy.— Ed.] 



For the American Bee JoumaL 



A Few Conundrums on Bees. 



A. E. foster. 



Wliv is honey like liberty ? Because 

 eternal vigilance is the price thereof. 



Why is the bee business like a iioor 

 man's purse 'r' Because there is no 

 money in it; or to suit everybody, 

 Why is a well kept apiary like an old 

 cheese 'r' Because there are millions 

 in it. 



Why are bees, during the honey 

 season, like clowns "t' Because they 

 are pleasant aii<l agreeable, doing 

 their managers all the good they can. 



Why are bees like merchants ? Be- 

 cause they have stores and "cell" 

 honey. 



Why are beesseekingamong llowers 

 like young fellows going to see their 



