AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



775 



TTIie Report of the National Bee- 

 Keepers' Union for the past year is as 

 follows : 



The past year has been a very import- 

 ant one for the National Bee-Keepers' 

 Union. We have added 50 per cent to 

 our membership, and rendered timely 

 and substantial aid to many bee-keepers 

 who were harrassed by malicious and 

 designing enemies of the pursuit. 



The moral weight and influence of the 

 Bee-Keepers' Union has prevented many 

 lawsuits from being commenced, and 

 where such had been begun it over- 

 threw the claims of ignorant enemies of 

 the pursuit, foiled the machinations of 

 cunning lawyers, and guided the judges 

 in making decisions, by referring them 

 to the decision of the Supreme Court of 

 Arkansas, and the able argument of 

 Judge Williams in the celebrated case of 

 the City of Arkadelphia vs. Z. A. Clark. 



In briefly reviewing the work of the 

 past year, we commence with the case of 



G. W. Cole, Canton, 111. 



Here complaints were made to the 

 Mayor, and the bees of Mr. Cole were 

 «leclared a nuisance. Ignorant jealousy 

 was the cause of the trouble. The case 

 was then brought before a Justice of the 

 Peace, who decided it against Mr. Cole 

 (as might be expected), fining him $1, 

 and costs of $21.70. The case was 

 then taken up by the Union, and 

 appealed to the Circuit Court. 



The prosecuting witness, Mr. Shaffer, 

 not being content to await the result of 

 the appeal, maliciously renewed the 

 attack, and the same Justice of the 

 Peace issued a new warrant, just to 

 annoy Mr. Cole. But this time the 

 Union won the case. 



It was shown that concentrated venom 

 was the cause of the prosecution. The 

 city papers condemned the Mayoi: and 

 Council in unmeasured terms. 



At the Circuit Court, to which the case 

 was appealed, Mr. Shaffer and his min- 

 ions were defiant and threatening at first, 

 then they wanted to hedge. When the 

 case was reached on the docket, our 

 attorneys called the attention of the 

 Court to the statute, and cited authori- 

 ties. The Judge said that such a case 

 could not be maintained, and ordered it 

 dismissed. 



Thus ended the celebrated bee case at 

 Canton. We had hoped to have the 

 opportunity to carry this case to the 

 Supreme Court, but was not allowed to 

 do so. It was clean-cut maliciousness, 

 9,nd would have been a grand chance to 



have the decision of the Supreme Court 

 of Illinois on the simple question, "Is 

 bee-keeping a nuisance?" 



Mrs. J. M. Null, Miami, Mo. 



The Mayor, who is also editor of the 

 News, tried to incite a crusade against 

 the bees, and assailed Mrs. Null and her 

 honey-gatherers each week. That lady, 

 having been a member of the Union for 

 years, was instructed how to proceed 

 should legal measures be commenced by 

 that ungallant official, and copies of the 

 Arkansas Supreme Court decision were 

 sent to the Mayor and Councilmen. They 

 have not dared to molest the bees yet. 



F. M. Hart, Traver, Calif. 



A fellow named Ogden, who is a grape- 

 grower in Traver, circulated a petition 

 to the Board of Supervisors to have the 

 bees" removed because they were charged 

 with ruining the grape crop — that dam- 

 age was done by rain, however. Mr. 

 Hart wrote the facts to the Manager of 

 the Union, who, last February, in- 

 structed him how to proceed, and sent 

 copies of the Arkansas Supreme Court 

 decision, to be placed in the hands of 

 the Board, and head off the petitioners. 



The Board then procured from the 

 District Attorney an " opinion " on this 

 question : "Can the Board of Super- 

 visors prohibit, by ordinance, the keep- 

 ing of bees ?" 



The District Attorney replied : "Bees 

 are property, and being such you cannot 

 destroy the right of the owner therein. 

 Any attempt of the Board to prohibit 

 these farms on the ground that they are 

 a menance to fruit farms would be usur- 

 pation by it of the functions of courts 

 and juries, a denial to the citizen of his 

 property-rights, and practically a con- 

 fiscation of his property without due 

 process of law." 



The Board denied the petition, and the 

 bee-keepers won a substantial victory. 



The Union is to be congratulated upon 

 another victory. While Mr. F. M. Hart's 

 action was directed by the Union, he 

 remained in perfect quietude, and his 

 rights have been sustained. His neigh- 

 bors became frightened at the cry of 

 " the wolf," fled to the mountains, and 

 sacrificed their property. How much 

 cheaper and more comfortable it would 

 have been to have held a membership 

 ticket in the Union, and had its backing, 

 moral support and defense ! 



E. Greeley, Loraine, O. 



A neighbor of Mr. Elbert Greeley, at 

 Lorain, 0., circulated a petition asking 

 the City Council to pass an ordinance to 



