1895. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



69 



mltted to him by the Department, and ten hives on his own ac- 

 count. Please note the "records" prove that Mr. Parsons 

 did purchase ten hives of bees in Italy on Government account, 

 the sa R as he was purchasing, as recorded by Dr. Riley, 

 " cuttiii,. "d plants for testing in this country." 



Still further, Mr. Langstroth records that he saw in Par- 

 sons' bee-yard in spring of 1860, " three different packages" 

 of small boxes containing Italian bees which just came from 

 Italy, and that " one of them was consigned to the United 

 States Government and one to Parsons." Note, it is proved 

 that Parsons purchased ten hives of bees on the Government's 

 account, and that the package was duly consigned to the 

 United States Government, and that the bees so consigned are 

 landed in P.'s bee-yard, where they were — the package of 

 boxes assigned to the United States converted by Parsons to 

 his own use. 



Then what ? Xf the bees in the package consigned to our 

 Government were not "oil dead!" they were the same as 

 dead so far as Uncle Sam was concerned. However, it was 

 reported, per bee-yard, that every queen in the Government 

 package was indeed dead (?), and only "a few queens were 

 alive in the boxes marked for Mr. Parsons." 



Now, my " position " was, and still is, that Parsons did 

 purchase bees in Italy for which the United States Govern- 

 ment " paid more or less money." The records referred to 

 prove beyond a doubt that ten colonies of the bees — the same 

 that were consigned to the Government — were imported at the 

 expense of the Oovernrnent. Mr. Parsons was constituted a 

 Department agent to make purchases of "cuttings, plants," 

 and bees in Italy, and he reported, as the record shows, that 

 in pursuance of the order he purchased for the Department 

 ten hives of Italian bees and ten hives on his individual ac- 

 count. This much of the history is not controveited. Mr. 

 Parsons has never, I am sure, written a line relating to his, or 

 that of the bees he purchased in Italy ; though at times since 

 1861 I have endeavored " to draw him out " and explain. 



The " position " taken by Mr. Baldridge, claiming that he 

 " is in possession of the entire history of the " transaction by 

 and between the Department and Parsons, is a gross assump- 

 tion. He was in no way a party, and it is a plain impossi- 

 bility for him to have personal knowledge of what was said 

 and done by Parsons and the officials of the Department. His 

 hearsay story could not be admissible in court, because he is 

 incompetent — not able to give facts — yet he assumes the 

 position. 



I took a part in prompting the Department to import Ital- 

 ian bees, yet I have never published the senseless " claim " 

 that I am in possession of "the entire history " of the impor- 

 tation. I have given the known facts in the case, and drawn 

 conclusions therefrom which implicate Mr. Parsons as having 

 dishonored a public trust, and his would-be defenders on 

 record culpable of wanton deception. 



Editor York demands that I "lose no time in having the 

 records searched for proof in order to sustain my position,' 

 that the Government " lost more or less money " expended to 

 import the bees. The " claim " of Parsons is so improbable — 

 so fallacious on its face — that it fails to counter and raise an 

 issue. 



The "claim" made by Mr. Baldridge, is that Parsons, 

 while in Italy serving as Department agent, purchased some 

 bees for the Government as per order issued by the Depart- 

 ment, that he paid for the bees out of his own money (did he 

 pay for cuttings and plants out of his individual funds?), and 

 that the Government refused to honor its obligation to pay for 

 the bees, consequently Parsons took " possession of them." 

 Mr. Langstroth assured me that the "Government bees were 

 ■all dead !" and said that "one package was marked for (con- 

 signed to) the United States Government ;" and in answer to 

 my " insinuation " that Parsons had no right to take the bees 

 to his yard and give it out that only a few of the queens 

 were alive, and they were found in the " package consigned 

 to Parsons," Mr. Baldridge, in the role of a pettifoger, 

 "claims" that because the Government, as he asserts, did not 

 pay him the alleged disbursement he had a valid right to the 

 possession (custody) of the bees (?). Well, the "claim" is 

 that the Government held off after P.'s long trip, to get satis- 

 faction, but conceding that P. paid for the bees, he kept them 

 — in a legal view, embezzled the Government's property; and 

 how about " trying to get money from the Government " when 

 the bees were in " his possession " — in fact, converted ? Does 

 not the "claim," when viewed in the light of the facts in the 

 case, look most unreasonable? 



Everybody well knows that Uncle Sam pays from one to 

 ten or more hundred cents on every dollar of his obligations, 

 and the " claim " alleging that Parsons had a just debt against 

 the Government for moneys laid out and expended, and pay- 



ment refused, sounds, even to the most credulous, like an un- 

 truthful excuse. 



You inform me that Mr. Baldridge will have more to offer. 

 I hope he will fulfill the promise. I implicated him in a 

 wrong in that he certified to what was impossible. I allude to 

 Parsons' advertisement of Italian bees bred from queens that 

 came from Italy in one of the " packages" — the advertisement 

 is recorded in the early issues of the American Bee Journal, 

 1861. He challenged me to refute his statement, which I did 

 to his satisfaction. Now, I in return challenge him to ex- 

 plain, if he can, his " testifying fully, from actual observation, 

 to the great superiority of this race (Italian) over the common 

 bee," in the spring of 1861, prior to there having been seen a 

 whole colony of Italian bees in America. I will not "search 

 the records " for evidence to sustain my position "taken 

 against Mr. Baldridge," for the editor can take up any of the 

 early issues of the American Bee Journal and read the adver- 

 tisement. Eichford, N. Y. 



Thunder-Showers and Nectar-Secretion, Etc. 



BY W. H. MORSE. 



While thinking on the swarming of bees, an item came 

 into my mind which is not of much value in itself, but has 

 great bearing on the honey-production and of course the con- 

 duct of the bees. 



I expect almost all bee-keepers have noticed that the 

 honey-flow is more copious when thunder-showers are in the 

 atmosphere, or when the peculiar state of the atmosphere is 

 such as to produce an abundance of ozone, as this gas is a 

 great stimulant to vegetation, more especially to the flower, 

 or, rather, seed organs — in fact, to such an extent that plants 

 that refuse to be operated on by artificial hybridization will, 

 when this gas is present in a large quantity, cross with varie- 

 ties which it would be almost impossible otherwise to obtain. 

 So we see that anything that will affect the stamen and pistil 

 must of necessity produce the like effect on the nectary, hence 

 a large flow of nectar ; and if the bees are equal to the emer- 

 gency, every cell that is capable of being filled, is loaded in 

 short order, and the results are preparing for swarming. 



I remember in June, 1893, such a time occurred. The 

 air was oppressive, but clear, preceding the rain, which fell in 

 torrents six hours later. The linden was in full flower at the 

 time, and a friend remarked on passing me, that there was a 

 swarm of bees in that big linden, and, as a result, I was under 

 that tree in a short time, but the swarm was nowhere to be 

 found, but there were bees enough in the tree to make a 

 swarm, and they were working (seemingly to me) on double- 

 quick time. The surplus arrangement on my hives was small 

 — being one super for comb honey, the bees at the time having 

 them half drawn out with comb ; the result of the thing was 

 swarming, and I did not get 20 pounds from six colonies, but 

 I did not intend to be caught in that order of things again. 



HOW LONG POLLEN RETAINS ITS VITALITY. 



While thinking over this scribble, it brings another item 

 to my mind. I once experimented with pollen to see how long 

 it would retain its power of fecundity, and found it perfect if 

 stored in thin layers with tissue paper between them, and kept 

 perfectly dry for eleven months. Take the pointer. Northern 

 queen-rearers. Pollen would fill the bill better than flour. 



Florence, Nebr. 



CONDUCTED BY 



AIRS. JENlSirB ATCHLEY, BEEVJLLE, TEX. 



Report of the South. Texas Bee-Convention. 



[Continued from page 58.] 



As Dr. Marshall was interrupted near the beginning of 

 his address by more bee-keepers arriving, at the same time, a 

 committee was asked for to arrange the question-box for the 

 next day, as there were not enough questions handed in by 

 the bee-keepers to make a full box. W. R. Graham, C. B. 

 Bankston, and P. A. Lockhart were appointed by the chair- 

 man to arrange the list of questions. At the close of Dr. 

 Marshall's address, as the committee was not yet ready to re- 



