G46 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Oct. 10, 



are able to feed her before she is out, and the feeding leads to 

 an acquaintance. By this method I have had a queen intro- 

 duced to three different colonies inside of 24 hours. 



R. A. Harrison — I give the bees a thorough smoking with 

 dripd grass, and then put the bees in a cage from which the 

 bees can release her inside of 8ve hours. The smoke gives a 

 strong odor to the bees, queen, and hive. 



J. T. Calvert — I visited Henry Alley this summer, and he 

 introduced virgin queens to nuclei, filling each nucleus with 

 smoke, putting in the queen, and then stopping up the en- 

 trance with a plantain leaf. The leaf wilts and releases the 

 bees. 



Mr. Aspinwall — Mr. Alley uses too much smoke. I think 

 we should use as little smoke as possible. 



Next came an essay by Dr. C. C. Miller, of Marengo, III., 

 on 



Xtae Amalgfaination of the North American 

 Bee-Keepers' Association and the Na- 

 tional Bee-Keepers' Union. 



Shall there be a union of the Union and the North Ameri- 

 can ? Should the North American Bee-Keepers' Association 

 ask this question, the Bee-Keepers' Union might answer : 



Dr. C. C. Miller, Marengo, III. 



"Mind your own business. Better not discuss publicly 

 whether there is to be a 'wedding' till you find out privately 

 whether I'm willing to marry." 



And yet, and yet. The two organizations have been close- 

 ly identified, their interests should be the same, their member- 

 ship is to some extent the same and should bo more fully the 

 same, and more members of the Union can be found together 

 at one time at a North American convention than at any other 

 time and place. Indeed the nearest the Union has ever come 

 to having a meeting has been at the meetings of the North 

 American, and aside from that there has never been the sem- 

 blance of a meeting of the Union. So there seems nothing 

 particularly inappropriate to talking the matter over at this 

 convention. 



I am asked to say something introductory, and I'll be 

 brief. As a member of the North American, I should say to 

 the Union : " If you'll join hands with us, we think we can do 

 more for the interest of bee-keepers than is now being done. 

 To be very plain, we'd like to have the money in your treasury. 

 We can then increase our membership, and an increase of 

 membership is the thing we have always needed." 



Now I'll tell you how I feel as a member of the Union. A 

 few of us banded together to battle for the right of bee-keep- 

 ers, and have paid from one to ten dollars each to support the 

 battle. The Union has done a grand work, and every bee- 

 keeper in the land has had the benefit. If no other benefit, 

 he has had the feeling of security coming from the decisions 



gained by the Union. There is an element of unfairness in 

 the few bearing all the expense for the benefit of the many, 

 and if there's any way by which a large number could become 

 interested, I for one would be glad to see it. 



Notwithstanding the small membership of the Union, of 

 late the income has outrun the outlay, and an unused and per- 

 haps unneeded surplus lies in the treasury. As matters now 

 stand, we shall continue to pay into the treasury one dollar 

 annually, and that seems hardly right when there is no appar- 

 ent need for it. Why should we pay more into the treasury 

 when we don't know what to do with what we now have ? 

 With the decisions of the Union as precedents, there seems less 

 need for further work in the same direction. 



There is nothing inconsistent, there would have been 

 nothing inconsistent in the first place, in having the North 

 American do the work that the Union has done. Probably it 

 would have been done in that way but for an emergency that 

 arose requiring immediate action. If one organization can do 

 the work of the two, it is better. Every man who pays his 

 money into the treasury of the Union will just as willingly pay 

 it into the treasury of the North American, if he is sure he 

 will get the same benefit from it. 



The main question to be settled is, "What will do the 

 greatest good to the geatest number?" Without claiming any 

 special wisdom in the matter, I may be allowed to say what 

 occurs to me. Merge the Union into the North American. 

 Preserve intact whatever sum may be thought desirable as a 

 defence fund. Use the balance — instead of a grant from gov- 

 ernment, as in other countries, and in part of our territory — 

 to increase the membership of the North American. It ought 

 not to be a difiScult matter to increase it to a thousand, and 

 that thousand would have some force in securing a recognition 

 from the government, and getting on such footing as to easily 

 maintain and increase its numbers. The same reason that 

 DOW induces 300 men to contribute one dollar annually would 

 still induce them to pay any necessary amount, and additional 

 inducements would bring in others. 



How affairs should be administered, and whether the 

 Manager has been properly paid for his services, are separate 

 matters for consideration. C. C. Miller. 



Following Dr. Miller's essay came one by Thos. G. New- 

 man, of Chicago, 111., upon the 



Bee-Keepers' Union and Xorth American. 



Everywhere unthinking men abound. They "plod along" 

 in the "old ruts," and often laugh at those who are progressive 

 — those who think and plan, in order to evolve methods for ad- 

 vancement. The unprogressive never push to the front — 

 never startle their companions by advancing a single idea. 

 Conservatism is their boast. They desire no disturbance, 

 while they practice the methods of their ancestors. 



The present age needs men of energy and power — men 

 who think, plan, devise and execute their designs. Men whose 

 "deeds of daring" make them anenduring name, and a place, 

 among mankind. Did any industry ever build itself up ? Was 

 a dollar ever seen rolling uphill, unless some one was pushing 

 it from behind ? Never ! 



Bee-keeping is no exception. It is just like other indus- 

 tries. It must be studied, helped, guided — yes, pushed uphill, 

 just like the dollar. To find a lucrative business the apiarist 

 must employ the most practical methods of production ; the 

 product must compare favorably, and compete in quality and 

 price, with others ; the apiarist must find the market and then 

 comply with its demands. In other words, must pusli the 

 pursuit all along to complete success. 



Not only is this absolutely true in the individual, but also 

 in the organization. For the past 20 years have I labored 

 with others to make the North American Bee-Keepers' Asso- 

 ciation a representative body, but so far our labors have not 

 been crowned with success. The unproductive " drones " in 

 the National " hive " seem to have been so numerous, that it 

 contains but little "surplus" honey. Each years' receipts 

 having disappeared with wonderful regularity. While the 

 few progressive "workers" have labored zealously all the 

 time, the great majority has been unproductive. Consump- 

 tion has fully equalled production, and the result is a " weak 

 colony," which some advise to have united to another colony 

 to save it. This is the case in a nut-shell. 



Having carefully read all that has lately been written on 

 the proposition to unite it with the National Bee-Keepers' 

 Union, and being equally interested in both (a life-member 

 and ex-President of the former, and General Manager of the 

 latter), it will be conceded that I candidly discuss the question 

 of the proposed amalgamation. 



First, let me say that, unintentionally, no doubt, I have 



