118 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



them to a healthy one, would as certainly 

 convey the disease in the honey carried, 

 as though it was fetched by robbers. 



I shall close here, for I am sure that if 

 due and timely heed be paid to the direc- 

 tions given herein, and in my essay of a 

 year ago, no one need be greatly alarmed, 

 nor very seriously damaged, by foul- 

 brood, and I only hope that none of you 

 may ever need even to call them into 

 exercise. — Read at the Michigan State 

 Convention. 



AMteratlon— Tie Bee-Keepers' Ilnion, 



JAMES HEDDON. 



At our late State convention at Detroit, 

 many of our members were greatly sur- 

 prised to find several lots of adulterated 

 honey still upon the market, especially 

 in the metropolis of this State, where we 

 were in convention assembled. It was 

 all labeled "Michigan Strained Honey" 

 or something of the kind, which clearly 

 gave it away to those who were posted 

 in such matters, to say nothing of the 

 flavor being wholly different from that 

 of almost any grade of pure honey. 



The question came up what to do. It 

 was finally proposed to have a trade 

 mark that was protected by law, and 

 which every bee-keeper who belonged to 

 the association, procuring the same, 

 could use. Then the daily papers, and, in 

 fact, all the papers of the country will 

 take the thing up. I think I know just 

 how to get them to do it, and that too, 

 without charge, and soon consumers 

 everywhere will be educated to the facts 

 that producers never adulterate because 

 they cannot afford it, and that they can 

 instantly discern which packages were 

 put up by producers and which by 

 adulterators or city packers. 



Then it was proposed that the National 

 Bee-Keepers' Union should get the trade 

 mark, and all persons belonging to it, 

 and only such, should have the right to 

 use it. The writer remarked that he did 

 not believe the government would issue a 

 trade mark to a corporation to be used 

 legally by its various members. This 

 matter was left in doubt, for the com- 

 mittee, which was then and there 

 appointed, to decide upon. 



After the convention I visited a friend 

 and old schoolmate, one of the best 

 patent lawyers in the United States, who 

 resides in Detroit, and he cleared the 

 matter up immediately. A trade mark 

 will cost $40, and is good for 30 years. 

 He immediately agreed with my suspic- 

 ion, and at once made it a belief, or 



knowledge rather, that the Union could 

 not procure a trade mark, unless they 

 were incorporated, and then it would not 

 be legal protection to its various members 

 whose business interests were entirely 

 separate from each other. "But," says 

 he, "Any one member of the association 

 can procure the trade mark, which will 

 cost $40, and then he can transfer 

 individual rights to as many persons as 

 he sees fit, guaranteeing each one the 

 same protection as the person to whom it 

 was issued." 



It seems to me that this is liable to be 

 the result. It will make it an object for 

 every person who raises honey to sell, to 

 join the Union, for the trade mark alone 

 will be worth more to him than the 

 annual dues to the Union, and the $40 

 which the trade mark will cost, can be 

 taken out of the Union treasury, and 

 will hardly be felt. The president of the 

 Union or some other individual could 

 procure the trade mark for all, the 

 design of which should be something 

 striking and unique. Now what shall it 

 be ? In a council of many, surely wisdom 

 exists and something just right should 

 be brought forth, and no doubt will be. 

 Do not forget, Mr. Manager of the Union, 

 that any person joining the same who 

 has trouble on hand, or known to be 

 brewing at the time his application was 

 made, is not eligible to the protection of 

 the Union for that case. Please make 

 that clear to your solicitors. 



This trade mark will, m reality, be a 

 patent. It is the same thing, produced 

 in the same way, and protected in the 

 same way, by the same government, and 

 solicited through the same office. 



But now, friend Newman, I am happy 

 to state, that it will receive no opposition 

 from our friend A. I. Root. We had 

 him at this convention, and we had a 

 good time discussing the question of the 

 right of property in inventions. We 

 told him what we thought, he told us 

 what he thought. President Cook, our 

 State entomologist, fairly sat down on 

 him, of course in a friendly spirit, and 

 as though he was not enough, great big 

 Dr. Mason came down " ker-thump " 

 and our State senator and lawyer, as 

 well as the veteran bee-keeper, R. L. 

 Taylor, threw in his mite, and finally, 

 friend Root said he was sorry if he had 

 ever given the idea to his readers that 

 patents were not honorable property. 

 He did not mean to do it, he said, but 

 Professor Cook said he certainly had 

 done it, for he knew that was the im- 

 pression gathered by his readers. We 

 all hope hereafter, that friend Root will 

 be fairer with this most dignified of all 



