1895. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



269 



latter part, I of course agree, and would most humbly apologize 

 for publishing Mr. Clarlse's criticism of Mr. McEvoy's report, 

 which criticism necessitated publishing the reply by Mr. McEvoy. 

 Now, by apologizing for publishing both the criticism and the 

 reply, Mr. Clarke and Mr. McEvoy can each take his share of my 

 apology, which will leave matters about where they were at the 

 time Mr. McEvoy's foul brood report was printed. 



Wishing to get the exact nature and limits of the power in- 

 vested in the Foul Brood Inspector of Ontario, by Act of Parlia- 

 ment, some correspondence has passed between Mr. Clarke and the 

 Ontario Government. The Attorney General was first addressed 

 under the idea that he was the authoritative exponent of statutory 

 law. He, however, referred the matter to the Department of Ag- 

 riculture for reply, which Mr. Clarke has forwarded to me. It 

 reads as follows : 



Toronto, April 4, 189,5. 

 Rev. W. F. Clarke, Guelph, Ont — 



Dear Sir : — After reading the presentation of the case by your- 

 self, and also by Mr. McEvoy, I find it is practically impossible to 

 reconcile the statements, and all that appears possible tor me to do 

 is to answer one question further in regard to the powers of the 

 Inspector. 



In the case af the Agriculture and Arts Act, the interpretation 

 of doubtful points is left in the hands of the Minister of Agricul- 

 ture, but no such power is given to him or to this Department in 

 the case of the Foul Brood Act. In this matter, therefore, any 

 doubt or uncertainty will have to be settled by reference to a court 

 of law. If you ask, however, merely for the opinion of this De- 

 partment in regard to his powers, I can simply refer you to Sec. 3 

 of the Act, a copy of which was sent you, and this Department 

 reads that section as follows: 



1. The Inspector is directed by the President of the Association 

 to inspect the apiary. 



3. The Inspector goes and inspects the apiary, and satisfies 

 himself of the existence of foul brood in its virulent or malignant 

 type. 



3. The Inspector orders the destruction of the infected hives, 

 under his own personal direction. 



It does not appear to this Department that the latter clause re- 

 quires the Inspector to await the return of the owner, to go and 

 find him, or even to send him written notice, but that if the owner 

 or his servant is not present to carry out the instructions of the 

 inspector, he is authorized to set the match with his own bands. 

 As I stated before, the Inspector claims that the hives were badly 

 infected, and that there was nothing to be done but to burn them ; 

 and you claim that they were but slightly affected, and that no 

 burning was necessary. Neither the Attorney General's Depart- 

 ment nor this Department can, of course, decide as to this latter 

 question, and I presume it would have to be settled in a court of 

 law. But I do not suppose you will determine to carry your dis- 

 pute that far. 



You will understand, however, that this is merely the opinion 

 of this Department as to what the Act means, and is not or cannot 

 be considered as anything more than a mere opinion. 



Yours very truly, C. C. James, 



Deputy Miniater of Agrii-uUure. 



So that all the readers of the American Bee Journal may know 

 the full text of the Section of the Foul Brood Act epitomized by 

 Mr. James, I give it as sent me by Mr. W. J. Brown, of Chard, Ont. : 



REVISED STATUTES OF ONTARIO, 1890. 



Chapter 66, Section B. — The said inspector shall, whenever so 

 directed by the President of the Ontario Bee-Keepers' Association, 

 visit without unnecessary delay any locality in the Province of 

 Ontario and there examine any apiary or apiaries to which the 

 said President may direct him, and ascertain whether or not the 

 disease known as " foul brood " exists in such apiary or apiaries ; 

 and whenever the said Inspector shall be satisfied of the existence 

 of foul brood in its virulent or malignant type, it shall be the duty 

 of the Inspector to order all colonies so affected, together with the 

 hives occupied by them, and the contents of such hives and all 

 tainted appurtenance that cannot be disinfected, to be iiiimediiitthi 

 (leMroyed by Jire under the personal direction and superintendence of 

 the said Inspector; and after inspecting infected hives or fixtures, 

 or handling diseased bees, the Inspector shall, before leaving the 

 premises, or proceeding to any other apiary, thoroughly disinfect 

 his own person and clothing, and shall see that any assistant or 

 assistants with him have also thoroughly disinfected their persons 

 and clothing; provided that where the Inspector, who shall be the 

 ■wfcj/trfjf Wio-fo/'. shall be satisfied that the disease exists, but only 

 in milder types and in its incipient stages, and is being, or may be 

 treated successfully, and the Inspector has reason to believe that 

 it may be ftitirdij cured, then the Inspector may, in his disereiiinty 

 omit to destroy or order the destruction of the colonies and hives 

 in which the disease exists. 



In the editorial foot-note on page 238, it was not intended to 

 utterly prohibit further discussion of the subjects of foul brood or 

 foul brood laws in these columns, but simply to stop any further 

 reference to the special Clarke-McEvoy case, as it was quite appar- 

 ent that anything more on that line would mainly consist of un- 

 interesting personalities. 



fKrr)or}Q i\)€ Bee-Papers 



CoJic/ucted V>y "GiEAIVER.' 



IMPROVED BEES. 



For the last three years, B. Taylor has been buying golden 

 and five-banded bees liberally, as he reports in Review. He 

 has bad so many cases of their dying in winter that he begins 

 to doubt their vitality and endurance. For the past two years 

 he finds his bees unusually cross, and in most cases the aggres- 

 sors are the very yellow bees, so he thinks it is a case of 

 '•improved strain of bees." 



COMB vs. EXTRACTED HONEY. 



One reason, according to R. C. Aikin in Review, that bees 

 store more honey in extracting-combs than in sections is that 

 they work more readily at filling combs already built, but he 

 thinks the total gain is not so great as it appears, for part of 

 the honey that is put in the extracting-combs would be put in 

 the brood-combs if sections were on. He also thinks that the 

 increased crop of extracted is at the expense of largely in- 

 creased labor. 



DEAD air space. 



Hutchinson challenges a statement in Gleanings to the 

 effect that no chaff or packing material is needed if the com- 

 partment is air-tight. He says the air, being alternately 

 warmed and cooled, will set up a circulation, and thus act as a. 

 conductor, while the packing breaks up this circulation. 



large or small hives. 



The Dadants in Gleanings having made the point that the 

 number of bees will be lessened by restricting the queen to a 

 small hive, the Bee-Keepers' Review makes reply that al- 

 though there are fewer bees per queen, there are no less per 

 comb or per apiary, the idea being that with smaller hives 

 more of them can be kept. The Dadants will probably flaunt 

 in his face the fact that restricting the queen in the small hive 

 makes a great increase of swarming over the three or four per 

 cent, they have with their big hives. 



BEST FORM FOR A HIVE. 



H. R. Boardman, iu Gleanings, takes the old straw skep 

 as the model of perfection in a bee-hive, if only the require- 

 ments of the bees are considered. As coming nearest to this 

 form, and yet suited to man's convenience, he favors the 

 square hive with square frames, X2%%.V2^,i inches. That 

 gives the bees a chance to keep their stores above them, as in 

 the straw skep. 



TEST FOR ADULTERATED WAX. 



Here's a test that Gleanings says is not entirely reliable, 

 but suESciently so to put the buyer on his guard. Take a two- 

 quart Mason jar, put in some pieces of wax of known purity, 

 and fill up the .iar half full of water. The wax will float. Now 

 gradually add alcohol till the wax will just sink to the bottom. 

 The sample to be tested will sink when put in, if pure, but 

 will float if part paraffiue or ceresin. 



ELECTROPOISE AND OXYDONOR. 



A. I. Root has been after that fraud, electropoise, with a 

 sharp stick, and now he's after oxydonor, a near relative of 

 electropoise. In the oxydonor circular reference is made to 

 D. L. Moody. In reply to an inquiry, Mr. Root received the 

 following: " I know nothing about this, and never endorsed 

 it.— D. L. Moody." 



SACALINE. 



This new Russian forage-plant, mentioned lately by Chas. 

 Dadant in this journal, is being boomed at a good rate. A. I. 

 Root quotes without endorsing the circular statement that it is 

 perfectly hardy, even in Siberia : once planted grows forever 

 without cultivation or manuring; endures severest drouths, 

 luxuriates in wet lands, etc. But Director Wilson of the Iowa 

 Experiment Station says cattle won't eat it, even in Russia. 



THE HEDDON HIVE PATENT. 



A description of the patented Danzenbaker hive appeared 

 lately in Gleanings. James Heddon appears in a letter in 

 Gleanings, claiming that this hive is a direct infringement on 

 his rights, but thinks it unnecessary to spend large sums of 

 money in United States courts, providing the people are prop- 

 erly informed regarding the rights and wrongs of inventors, 

 and he thinks it rests with our literature to give them such 



