348 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



was ill error about. Even though Mr. 

 Corneil is, as he assumes to be, in a high 

 degree more learned, more scientific, and 

 more wise, 1 conducted the experimental 

 investigation, the whole being under my 

 critical observation, and I ought to be 

 able to decide as to the " results" as well 

 as any one in Canada, who never experi- 

 mented with foul-brood: and nothing 

 appears to even indicate that Mr. Cor- 

 neil ever had or saw foul-brood. 



I invite special attention to Mr. Cor- 

 neil's " easily explained" version of the 

 case of foul-brood being "propagated." 

 He disposes of it by a sort of coroner's 

 verdict — " I find that when the resist- 

 ance of the living tissue cells ceased, 

 the bacillus alvei floating in the air (!) 

 made a lodgement, and found in the dead 

 larv£e a congenial medium for their 

 growth and multiplication !" Thus, he 

 is the father of the idea that foul-brood 

 germs are ever present and " floating in 

 the air" — the atmosphere chock full 

 of them — and when living tissue cells 

 cease to resist (wonder when or in what 

 stage it occurs), the bacillus finds a lodge- 

 ment in brood, and foul-brood is the 

 result. 



According to Mr. Corneil, foul-brood 

 germs, like house-flies, are ever looking 

 for lodgement whenever living tissues 

 cease to resist. His version of the origin 

 of foul-brood is so fallacious on its face 

 that I need not further reply to it. 



Mr. Cornell attacks my statement that 

 foul-brood microbes do not harm im- 

 mago bees. He quotes from encyclo- 

 pedias, and other books written by those 

 who know nothing practically about bees 

 or foul-brood, but are expert at theoriz- 

 ing, and as reliable as Prof. Wiley. In 

 reply to Mr. Cornell's references, aimed 

 at knocking me out, I will quote from 

 one whose "writings are recognized 

 authority " the world over. I allude to 

 Pastor Dzierzon, who, after years of 

 dealing with foul-brood, wrote : ''Foul- 

 brood, indeed, is a disease exclusively of 

 the lanKC, and not of the emerged bees, or 

 of brood suificiently advanced to be 

 nearly ready to emerge." I refer to the 

 "encyclopedia" by Rev. L. L. Lang- 

 stroth, 3d Ed., page 259. Everyone who 

 has had experience in removing bees 

 from foul-broody colonies, will vouch for 

 my " statement," Mr. Corneil to the con- 

 trary notwithstanding. 



Mr. Corneil takes me to task for stat- 

 ing that "foul-brood is not a disease." 

 The term was coined by Germans, who 

 suffered loss from the effects of brood 

 becoming foid. Tlie term plainly ex- 

 presses rottenness or putridity — indicat- 

 ing a state of dissolution of inanimate 



bodies.. The term disease expresses not- 

 at-ease, and is only applicable to the 

 living. Brood cannot properly be called 

 fo2d until dead. 



Mr. Corneil attempts to frighten 

 readers by alluding to my "statement 

 that corrosive sublimate may be used as 

 a spray for combs containing diseased 

 brood." Mr. C. never used corrosive 

 sublimate in such cases, and has no 

 knowledge of its use as mentioned by 

 me. Judging from his assumed medical 

 lore, he is not competent to teach. 

 Bichloride of mercury (corrosive subli- 

 mate) is one of the preparations in com- 

 mon use by eminent physicians and sur- 

 geons. I gave the proportions for a 

 solution to be used as a spray — "one part 

 corrosive sublimate crystals to one thou- 

 sand parts water" — just the same as is 

 used by surgeons as an antiseptic in the 

 modus operandi of a douche when per- 

 forming surgical operations — the solu- 

 tion streaming onto the skin before cut- 

 ting, and following the cutting instru- 

 ment and washing the wounds, and the 

 dressings are all soaked in the solution. 

 Any physician will admit that my 

 " statement" about using corrosive sub- 

 limate to spray brood combs cannot be 

 successfully controverted. For, indeed, 

 there is no other article known equal to 

 corrosive sublimate as a germicide, and 

 it does not disturb bees, as do the acids 

 commonly used in treating foul-brood. 

 The use of bichloride of mercury as an 

 antiseptic was introduced by the re- 

 nowned Dr. Robert Koch, and its use as 

 such will continue unless it becomes 

 known to the world that Mr. S. Corneil is 

 a graduate of the medical sciences, well 

 seized with diplomas, and recognized as 

 higher authority. 



Now, let us compare true knowledge 

 with that of the critic disputer. Within 

 the precincts of Ontario, Canada, are 

 many expert, scientific apiarists. Chief 

 among them are Mr. Allen Pringle, who 

 is President of the Ontario Bee-Keepers' 

 Association, and Minister or executive 

 under the Foul-Brood Act, and Wm. 

 McEvoy, Esq., is the Official Inspector. 

 Why was Mr. Corneil ignored ? O, 

 prophets in their country get left (for 

 cause), which explains. 



Mr. Pringle read my article alluded to 

 by Mr. Corneil, and, being pleased with 

 it, at once wrote his subordinate, Mr. 

 McEvoy, calling attention to the merits 

 of the article. Mr. McEvoy procured a 

 copy of the American Bee Joubnal 

 alluded to by Mr. Pringle (Mr. McEvoy 

 is now a subscriber), and on reading the 

 article that Mr. Corneil alleges is a tissue 

 of serious errors, he indited a letter to 



