1895. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



493 



New Subscribers and Premiums.— Those 



who send new subscribers will please remember that we do 

 not now offer to give "Bees and Honey" bound in paper to 

 any new subscriber, unless the new subscriber himself or 

 herself sends us the $1.00 for the Bee Journal a year. In 

 other words, we do not now offer two premiums on one new 

 name. 



Another thing : In order to secure any particular pre- 

 mium requiring more than one new subscriber, you need not 

 wait until you have all the required new names, but send 

 them in with the money as fast as you get them, and select 

 your premium when sending the last new subscriber in the 

 club. By so doing the new readers will be getting their copies 

 of the Bee Journal right along, and will not have to wait. 



Please remember, also, that we cannot furnish back num- 

 bers in regular order since Jan. 1, 1895. We have a few odd 

 back numbers left, which we are disposing of in lots of 10 for 

 10 cents, as stated on page 476. All new subscriptions will 

 begin with the current number when the names are received. 

 ■*-»-*■ 



Mr. Henry Sutherland, of Bainbridge, Mich., 

 called at the Bee Journal office last week. 



The A. I. Root Co. are arranging to nearly double 



their present capacity for turning out hives and sections. 



That shows a good deal of faith in the future of bee-keeping. 



But it doesn't pay to get discouraged in any worthy cause. 



When things again take a turn for the better, bee-keepers 



may have to believe as did the cat on a dark night when he 



fairly flew ahead of the on-coming bootjacks, brickbats, etc. — 



he concluded everything was coming his way ! Be ready for the 



"good time coming." 



•*-*-*' 



Mr. A. Y. Bald-win, of DeKalb, III., dropped into 



the Bee Journal office while in Chicago July 24. He reports 



130 colonies, and but very little honey on account of the 



drouth. 



fS.n)or)(^ \\)€ Bee-Papers 



Gleaned by Dr. JUlUer. 



THE NORTH AMERICAN AND THE BEE-KEEPERS' UNION. 



Much space is taken up with these topics in the July num- 

 ber of Review. Rev. W. P. Clarke regrets the failure of the 

 North American to be a representative body, and takes a 

 rather gloomy view of its character. He says : 



"But the Association has never come up to the ideal 

 formed by its originators, who hoped to make it a Supreme 

 Court or High Parliament of bee-keeping. It has been, for 

 the most part, a mere school for beginners, and there has al- 

 ways been a strongly-marked dislike of thoughtful essays and 

 really able discussions. A good social time and a gossipy talk 

 over the A B C of bee-keeping has been about all the meetings 

 have amounted to. Consequently, many of our foremost bee- 

 keepers have been once and did not care to come again." 



James Heddon, although in a different line, takes equally 

 a pessimistic view. Among other things he says: 



" Then there is another weak condition with the apicul- 

 tural organizations we have had. The leaders have not been 

 honey-produc;ers, consequently they were not filled with api- 

 cultural enthusiasm. What kind of enthusiasm, then, did 

 bring these men to our conventions, and cause them to seek a 

 leading position at the front ? Some desired to be seen. Others 

 had axes to grind. They had some money speculation in view. 

 It has been preachers, professors, publishers, supply-dealers, 

 and a few side-issue bee-keepers, who have been at the front 

 as leaders, because of their energies to get there, and the fool- 

 ishness of bee-keepers to assist them. Most of these men are 

 impractical, not only as honey-producers, but as workers in 

 any cause. We want practical organizers, instead theoretical 

 ones." 



Allen Pringle. in a very clear and sensible article, not 

 only tells what he thinks ought to be done, but tells in detail 

 just how it should be done. He gives bee-keepers' credit for 

 honesty and enthusiasm, but thinks there is still enough self- 

 ishness left in them to desire a quid pro quo. He says : 



"It may be taken for granted that a large majority of 

 bee-keepers who would become members and workers in an 

 organization must have substantial inducements held out to 

 them, and be convinced that the thing will pay them in dol- 

 lars and cents. That fetches them, and that once realized 

 they stay, and for a reason which is all-potent with them." 



And to be able to meet the case, money must come from 

 outside the organization in the shape of a grant from the 

 State or General Government. Referring to the success of 

 their societies in Canada, he thinks there should be a follow- 

 ing in the same line farther south. He says : 



" Our county societies are affiliated with our Provincial 

 (the Ontario Bee-Keepers' Association) and would not amount 

 to much of themselves independent of the central society from 

 which they receive an annual money grant and other privi- 

 leges. Of course the Provincial society receives an annual 

 grant of money from the Provincial government, which is the 

 financial backbone of the society, enabling it to accomplish 

 the splendid work it does; while without that grant the Asso- 

 ciation could do but little, if it could exist at all. The grant 

 enables the society to hold out to bee-keepers substantial in- 

 ducements to join and remain members. Each member gets 

 an annual premium of some kind nearly if not quite equal to 

 his membership fee of one dollar. He also gets the annual 

 official report, including the essays in full, and discussions, of 

 the annual meeting." 



The important matter of securing the appropriation he 

 thinks can be accomplished in this wise : 



" Let the State society get the names of the best and most 

 prominent of these in every constituency, and have them 

 write simultaneously to their respective members during the 

 session when the legislation is being sought. Get as many 

 bee-keepers in every ' riding ' as possible to write to their 

 member, urging him to support the bee-keepers' bill. In this 

 way every representative would be reached right from home — 

 from his own constituents; and a general attack of that sort 

 all along the line would have its effect. Even one judicious 

 letter from the constituent would have weight with the mem- 

 ber and the more the better to every member. This, as I 

 know by experience, works like magic. Try it ; but do not 

 rest with merely advising all and sundry persons through the 

 bee-journals to write their members. If you do, it will not be 

 done. Only a few will write. Having their names, they can 

 be prompted and urged personally, by letter or otherwise, at 

 small expense. Supply them with suggestions, forms and 

 postage — i. e., those who need such looking after. It will 

 pay. It is investing one dollar to get back fifty. Of course 

 this pre'-supposes that there are a few, more or less, in every 

 State who will push the work, and who are the men to do it. 

 That much given, it certainly can be done." 



Mr. Pringle strongly emphasizes the securing of a grant 

 by saying : 



"On this one matter of getting a regular government 

 grant your success in organization depends more, vastly, than 

 on anything else, because there is, I have no doubt, the api- 

 cultural material in every State to make a good and useful 

 society." 



Regarding the proposed union he says: 



"In union there is strength, and if I may give an opinion 

 in the premises, I may say I quite agree with the editor of the 

 Review that a union of the North American and the Bee- 

 Keepers' Union would be a wise move, and to the advantage 

 of both." 



Thos. G. Newmnn, General Manager of the Bee-Keepers' 

 Union, deplores the act that separated the two organizations, 

 but gives his disapproval of a return to the union in this em- 

 phatic fashion : 



"Now, in less than a year, up comes the proposition to re- 

 marry the two again. The National Association is to marry 

 the Union, as a blushing bride, probably because of her dow- 

 ery. What child's play and foolishness !" 



R. McKnight thinks the social feature of the North Amer- 

 ican has been its greatest attraction, but this has been re- 



