694 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Oct. 31, 



thought should be permitted without in tone, manner or 

 words, allowing personal feelings to creep in to mar the pleas- 

 ure and utility of our discussions, ever remembering that we 

 should never act contrary to our highest conceptions of duty. 

 To side with error and wrong against our best feelings, or 

 keep silence in the presence of injustice which should excite 

 indignant denunciation is as wrong as it is to throw out in- 

 sinuations as to motives and accusations for which there is no 

 ground but the imagination. 



We have before us an excellent program, and I have no 

 doubt, with the complexion of this convention, that it can and 

 will be one long remembered for its generally pleasant and 

 harmonious feeling, vigor of discussion, and the valuable 

 points which it has brought out, a portion of which in the 

 present stage of journalism will reach the home of every 

 thinking and reading bee-keeper on this continent and in 

 other lands. R. F. Holtermann. 



THIRD DAY — Friday Morning Session (Conjcluded). 



Mr. R. McKnIght, of Owen Sound, Ont., read an essay on 

 the subject of 



Legislation for Bee-Keepers. 



The Secretary, when requesting me to prepare this essay, 

 simplified the work for me, by clearly and concisely sketching 

 what he deemed the best course for me to pursue, in treating 

 the subject he assigned me. I would have you, he said, go 

 over the ground and point where good and evil has come from 

 legislation. This implies that he thought me qualified to do 

 what he asked me to do. It is needless to say that I do not 

 claim to be familiar with the laws of the world bearing on this 

 subject. I think, however, that I know the provisions of all 

 such laws in force in this Province, and believe them to be as 

 full and complete as those of a similar character in force in 

 any other country. Indeed, I do not know of a law affecting 

 bee-keepers (with the single exception of one recently enacted 

 by the legislature of Michigan), the counterpart of which is 

 not in force in Ontario. In reviewing the Ontario laws, then, 

 we will fully cover the ground. 



Before doing this, let us consider the justice or injustice 

 of the law in force in Michigan. It provides that bees may 

 not be kept nearer a public highway than 90 feet. This law 

 can cause little if any inconvenience to rural bee-keepers, but 

 may compel some apiarists in towns and villages to abandon 

 the pursuit, or move their bees farther afield. The law does 

 not manifest a clear conception of the matter on the part of 

 those who enacted it, or a close scrutiny of their work by 

 those immediately interested. If the legislature had been 

 wisely advised, the public safety might have been fully 

 secured, and bee-keepers in no wise inconvenienced. 



Bees domiciled 90 feet from a public road, with no barrier 

 between the hive and the highway, are a greater menace to 

 the safety of the passer-by than if their hive stood but nine 

 feet away, with a hedge or close board fence (say five feet 

 high) along the margin of the highway. The distance ought 

 to have been regulated with this fact in view. 



Returning to the consideration of the laws of the Prov- 

 ince affecting us and our pursuit, I find the first enactment re- 

 lating thereto, an old and important one. It is entitled, "An 

 Act Respecting the Right of Property in Swarms of Bees." I 

 deem this law of sufficient importance (especially to Ontario 

 bee-keepers) to warrant me in quoting it at length. Its pro- 

 visions are as follows : 



1. Bees living in a state of freedom shall be the property of the 

 person discovering them, whether he is. or is not, the proprietor of 

 the land on which they have established themselves. 



3. Bees reared and kept in hives shall be private property, and 

 as such shall, to the extent of 15 hives, be exempt from seizure for 

 debt, or for the discharge of any liability whatsoever, save and 

 except the amount of their purchase money. 



3. Wherever a swarm of bees leave a hive the proprietor may 

 reclaim them, so long as he can prove his right of property there- 

 in, and shall be entitled to take possession of them at any 

 place on which the swarm settles, even if such place be on the 

 land of another person, unless the swarm settles in a hive which is 

 already occupied, in which case the proprietor shall lose all right 

 of property in such swarm ; but he shall notify the proprietor of 

 such land beforehand, and compensate him for all damages. 



4. Any unpursued swarm which lodges on any property what- 

 soever, without settling thereon, may be secured by the first 

 comer unless the proprietor of the land objects. 



5. If the proprietor of a swarm of bees declines to follow 

 such swarm, and another person undertakes the pursuit, such 

 other person shall be substituted in the rights of the proprietor, 

 and every swarm which is not followed shall become the property 

 of the proprietor of the land on which it settles, without regard to 

 the place from which it has come. 



The above is the law of this Province respecting the pro- 

 prietorship of swarms and absconding swarms, and is so clear 

 that it requires no comment by me. 



The next law (in the order of its passing) which we are 

 to consider, is entitled, " An Act for the Suppression of Foul 

 Brood Among Bees." The provisions of this Act are too many 

 to be here quoted in full. Its principal provisions relate to 

 the Inspector, and his work. The Inspector is appointed 

 yearly, by the Ontario Bee-Keepers' Association, or its Board 

 of Directors, who fix his remuneration ; the latter, however, 

 is subject to the approval of the Minister of Agriculture, 

 through whose department he receives his pay. The principal 

 clause of the Act, relating to the Inspector, reads as follows : 



INSPECTION OF INFECTED APIARIES. 



3. The said Inspector shall, whenever so directed by the Presi- 

 dent of the Ontario Bee-Keepers' Association, visit without un- 

 necessary 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 appur- 

 tenances that cannot be disinfected, to be immediately destroyed 

 by lire 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, ic/io .v/»</^ ftc the 

 sole judge tlietruf. 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 entirely cured, then the Inspector may, in his dis- 

 cretion, omit to destroy, or order the destruction of the colonies 

 and hives in which the disease exists. 



The law also directs that bee-keepers in whose apiaries 

 foul brood exists, or who know of foul brood existing in any 

 other apiary, and fail to notify the President of the fact, may 

 be proescuted before a Justice of the Peace, and fined. 



Upon receiving such notice, or otherwise becoming aware 

 of the existence of foul brood in the yard of a bee-keeper, the 

 President must immediately direct the Inspector to proceed to 

 and inspect the bees. 



When on inspection the disease is found to be present, 

 and the bees destroyed, or treated, the owner may not conceal 

 the fact. Thereafter he is prohibited from selling or barter- 

 ing bees or appliances iintil the Inspector gives him permis- 

 sion to do so. Non-compliance with this provision subjects 

 the offender to a fine of not less than S20, or more than $50. 



This law has been in force about five years, and has, I 

 believe, resulted in much good; inasmuch as it has kept in 

 check, if it has not entirely eradicated, the disease in Ontario. 

 Its good results, however, are largely due to the fact that our 

 Inspector has combined the work of a doctor with the duties 

 of an inspector; nevertheless the law has in it some undesir- 

 able points, one of which is, the supreme power of the Inspec- 

 tor. Once ordered into the field, he is the arbiter of the bee- 

 keeper's fate. It is his prerogative to say whether the disease 

 is mild or malignant, and to destroy, or forbear to destroy. It 

 follows, then, that none but a competent and discreet man 

 should be appointed to an office where the incumbent is 

 clothed with such unlimited power. An unscrupulous or vin- 

 dictive man may do a great injustice in his capacity as in- 

 spector, and escape the consequences of his act. It is true 

 the law gives the Association power to make rules to govern 

 his conduct, but, as far as I know, nothing has been done by 

 that body to regulate his conduct while engaged in the work 

 of inspection. 



When the Inspector pronounces the disease present, and 

 of a virulent type, and decides to destroy the bees and appli- 

 ances, or either ; and the proprietor challenges his judgment, 

 an appeal should lie, to a competent disinterested third party, 

 whose decision would be final. This referee should be ap- 

 pointed by the Association. The ipse dicit of one man should 

 not be deemed sufficient to warrant the destruction of another 

 man's property. 



Soon after the passage of the above law, a statute was 

 enacted, prohibiting the spraying of fruit trees while in bloom, 

 with arsenites or other poisonous substances. A similar law 

 is in force in some of the United States. I am not sure such 

 a law is of much use to bee-keepers. It only protects them 

 from injury at the hands of ignorant fruit-growers. The 

 spraying of fruit trees is coming into general practice, and it 

 has come to stay while the present pests of fruit-growers 

 abound. What with official bulletins and newspaper articles, 



