22 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



not, I should probably not send them 

 any more. 



The trouble is, one of my neighbors, 

 who is not a millionnaire, and who 

 miglit want to use the money for his 

 crop, sends the same house his honey 

 also, and writes them that he wants 

 it worked off as soon as possible, even 

 if they have to shade the price a little, 

 as he has a note at the bank which 

 must be met at a certain date. The 

 commission men will probably sell 

 this man's honey first. The grocer 

 who bought it can undersell the one 

 who woiild buy mine. Not to be out- 

 done by his neighbor grocer he bears 

 the market in order to get his as 

 cheaply as the other man did. And 

 so it goes. The trouble is in the pro- 

 ducers who do not fix their own 

 prices. Mr. Baldridge says the same 

 thing. Now what are we going to do 

 about it V It seems just as impossible 

 to fix the price of honey in the world's 

 markets as it is to fix the price of 

 wheat. 



I live in the " wheat belt." I know 

 there have been more bushels of 

 wheat sold during the past year at 

 less than the cost of production than 

 above it. The farmers know it too, 

 but what folly it is to talk of getting 

 these farmers to combine and hold 

 their wheat for paying prices ! They 

 must either sell it or the sheriff will. 

 Even if they could hold it, they lack 

 organization and unity of purpose. 

 And you might preach the benefits of 

 a producers' association to them as 

 long as Noah preached to the antedi- 

 luvians, and few would be saved but 

 the preacher. They would not come 

 to his meeting. They would not read 

 his tracts. So with honey-producers. 

 One out of a hundred might identify 

 himself with the organization, but 

 where are the ninety and nine V 

 Slumbering in the security of blissful 

 ignorance. Seventy-five of the num- 

 ber will never hear of it, because they 

 do not read the bee-papers. They 

 will go on dickering their honey off to 

 Tom, Dick and Harry, for what they 

 can get, until it becomes so cheap 

 that they will take no interest what- 

 ever in the business, and let their 

 bees die. The law of the survival of 

 the fittest will in time fix things. 



Butter is a staple article. It has a 

 market value governed by supply and 

 demand, the same as wheat; yet 

 thousands of pounds of what is called 

 butter are annually sold at less than 

 10 cents per pound— below the cost of 

 production. Butter is also a luxury. 

 Wealthy people are willing to pay a 

 fancy price for a really tine article. 

 Some dairymen know how to " get 

 there," and supply this demand. They 

 make money while the other fellows 

 eke out an existence competing with 

 " oleo." Honey is not a staple. The 

 only way to sell it is to reach the 

 palate. We have very little trouble 

 selling our best grades of honey at a 

 price above cost of production. 



I do not see any other way out of 

 these low prices than to produce the 

 best at the lowest possible cost, and await 

 the result. If honey is cheaper than 

 it used to be, we produce it more 

 cheaply. The best appliances and the 

 best methods will win. Let us " grin 



and bear it." They who stick are the 

 one's to succeed. Remember Lot's 

 wife. 



Now as to the reports of honey in 

 the bee-papers, I do not see what harm 

 that does. Almost every other thing 

 is quoted in the produce papers. Are 

 hogs any cheaper because the daily 

 papers quote them y 



Forest City, 5 Iowa. 



For tbe American Bee JoumiU. 



Apicnltural Progress. 



JAMES HEDDON. 



Whoever looks back over the great 

 progress of apiculture during the last 

 two decades, will not fail to discover 

 that inseparably connected with this 

 progress is the one of mechanical in- 

 vention. Perhaps I might well have 

 said that this invention constitutes 

 the major portion of that progress. 

 Yes, surely, a look backward verifies 

 the statement. AV'here would we be 

 to-day had the Langstroth hive, 

 honey-extractor, comb foundation 

 machine, bellows smoker, under bev- 

 eled honey-knife, and scores of lesser 

 manufactures never been devised V 



When looking outside of our art, 

 how readily we discover that inven- 

 tions have enabled us to live better 

 and have more comforts of life than 

 the kings and queens of a century 

 ago. It is no wonder that civilized 

 nations have devised ways and means 

 to stimulate these inventions by way 

 of patent ofBces. There are, however, 

 serious objections to these offices, and 

 the laws and rulings connected with 

 them. They are expensive (some- 

 times vastly so), and they beget false- 

 hood and perjury. 



Two or three years ago I wrote an 

 article in Gleanings discussing the 

 feasibility of establishing among bee- 

 keepers an honorary patent system. 

 Some one smiled and said: "Oh! 

 pshaw, no apicuitural inventor could 

 realize protection through any such 

 arrangement. AVe have too many 

 dishonest men in our ranks." I am 

 aware that there are dishonest bee- 

 keepers, but they are not in the ma- 

 jority by any means, and among the 

 more intelligent who lead the van, I 

 am glad to say they are largely in the 

 minority. Before I wrote that article 

 for Oleanings, I looked the ground 

 over carefully— I have been looking 

 it over ever since, and to day I feel 

 positive that if the honorable men of 

 our class — men who readily see or can 

 be shown the right, will (and I believe 

 they will) use their influence for right 

 and justice, we can inaugurate a pro- 

 tective system not only cheaper, but 

 much better, and freer from fraud 

 than the patent system which is now 

 trying to protect the world's inven- 

 tors in tlieir right to the results of 

 their own labor. The patent office 

 now stands in the way of moral pro- 

 tection. While we all know that laws 

 governing conduct are absolutely 

 necessary, the student of human na- 

 ture does not fail to discover that 

 these necessary laws have a tendency 

 to remove from the human heart a 



part of the deep convictions of con- 

 science. 



Apropos to the above I have had to 

 smile at the ignorance or frown on the 

 thievishness of a few who have sent 

 letters asking a question that cannot 

 be answered this side of an expensive 

 suit in the United States courts : 

 " What will yourpatentclaimshold?" 

 The best answer to such a question — 

 the most appropriate answer— may be 

 found in the following illustration : 



When this country was new, and 

 nearly all the land belonged to the 

 government, the settlers very few, 

 and the timber free to any taker, a 

 resideat named Joseph Industry con- 

 ceived the idea of chopping a large 

 quantity of wood, which he thought 

 would be needed by a railroad, whicli 

 he felt sure must come that way in a 

 few years. lie began the work of 

 cording up the wood as fast as spare 

 time from the farm would admit, and 

 after a few years had a pile 4 feet 

 high and 200 "rods long. By and by 

 he noticed parties taking wood from 

 different places in the pile. Several 

 times he asked those who had taken 

 wood if they did not know that this 

 wood was the result of his labor, and 

 rightfully belonged to him ; and they 

 said " y-e-s," but it was " awful good" 

 wood, m uch better than their own, and 

 they did not think he would care if 

 they took a little ; that they could have 

 chopped down the same trees had 

 they chosen to do so. 



Finally he shouldered his rifle, mak- 

 ing up his mind to protect his wood 

 at all hazards. One day while sitting 

 on the pile, he saw a neighbor, Dave 

 Indolence, carrying wood away, and 

 called to him to stop. Dave answered 

 by asking him how far his rifle would 

 carry up. Joseph replied that its 

 range was about 80 rods ; when Dave 

 said, " If that is your ' claims ' I'll 

 take the wood and you can fire away, 

 for its a hundred rods down here ; you 

 see you didn't fix up the results of 

 your labor in the right shape." 



I find that it is a too common opin- 

 ion that it is only by virtue of law 

 that property in invention, exists. 

 Certainly we know that legal property 

 —property which the law will protect 

 — exists in invention only by virtue 

 of that law ; but morally, property in 

 invention is a law in nature, and the 

 right of property in invention will be 

 recognized by every honest man the 

 moment he realizes that fact. 



Property never was nor never will 

 be produced by law; it must be the 

 product of labor. It must be earned. 

 There are many men who legally own 

 a large amount of wealth who never 

 earned it, but surely some one did. 

 If property could be created by law, 

 our government might support all its 

 people in that way ; aye, legislate 

 them all rich. 



If property in invention did not ex- 

 ist in the nature of things, a statute 

 to protect such property by law would 

 amount to legal robbery. 



In the article for Gleanings, which I 

 have referred to, I proposed for con- 

 sideration something like this : In 

 the main we would follow the rulings 

 of the patent office. Regarding the 

 question of prior invention, we would 



