670 



AMERlCAisr BEE JOURNAL. 



common consent they are not, and we 

 are not benevolent so much as to pay 

 taxes unless our neighbors are so 

 minded. 



I have seen boys positively refuse to 

 pick up chips for their mother unless 

 their little brother or sister v^ould go 

 with them and help, and when at the 

 chip pile they would insist on their little 

 brother or sister picking up all the chips, 

 and then carrying them to the house. 



Our neighbors become much interested 

 in apiculture when it does not cost them 

 anything, and especially so during a 

 good flow of nectar. Everybody wants 

 bees, but it will not pay everybody to 

 keep them. 



Apiculture is a profession in which 

 success depends not only upon hard 

 study, but a natural gift and a natural 

 love for the little creatures. Still, they 

 invest and flood the country with useless 

 bees, overstocking the pasturage, and 

 spoiling the home market by selling 

 their honey at the stores for just what 

 they can get — 8 or 10 cents for section 

 honey. 



Some sell honey with mashed up comb 

 that brood has been reared in, perhaps, 

 for many years ; and I find people that 

 think honey is honey whether it is mixed 

 up with brood-comb or in new, nice, 

 clean section comb. This is discourag- 

 ing to the experienced apiarist who is 

 spending his time and money in trying 

 to build up a respectable business, is 

 losing precious hours of sleep by hard 

 study, and is often defeated in his 

 plans. 



Our meat markets, without protection, 

 would be treated with the most shameful 

 contempt, and we would be compelled, 

 under the circumstances, to eat poor 

 beef. The grocery stores would smell of 

 bad beef, as their honey cans now smell 

 of poor honey. 



Self-interest, actuated by purely sel- 

 fish motives, is wrong. As Americans, 

 we are moved to a desire to advance our 

 own interests, as it was with the Medes 

 and Persians of old. Humanity is full 

 of purely selfish motives. Like Cain, 

 they forget their own calling, and each 

 views his fellows' occupation with 

 covetous eyes. 



But when self-interest is actuated by 

 social motives, it is a benefit, and this 

 is the greatest interest, both to the indi- 

 vidual and his neighbors. Self-interest, 

 as it relates to social economy, is right. 

 The butcher pays a tax, and that is used 

 for the good of the community, and the 

 community protects him in his business. 

 Taxes levied from purely selfish motives 

 are wrong. Whenever the produce of 



a tax is used otherwise than in the serv- 

 ice of those who pay it, the tax is un- 

 just, and should not be tolerated. Our 

 commonwealth is not like a selfish 

 monarch, but provides the best interest 

 to its adherents in their respective 

 pursuits. The tax we pay is used for 

 our benefit. 



We need Government, and without it 

 a hasty return to barbarism would be 

 the inevitable result. The Government 

 participates in all production, and is as 

 much a factor in this creation of wealth 

 as land, labor or capital. Therefore, it 

 Is a factor in the production of wealth. 

 It is entitled to a share of the wealth 

 produced. We pledge our possessions to 

 support those whorii we elect to enact 

 and execute our laws. The Government 

 in return pledges us protection. 



We conclude then, that taxation is not 

 of itself an evil, .but a blessing ; and 1 

 think if bees were taxed, the Govern- 

 ment Experiment Station would be as 

 liberal in this pursuit as they are in 

 every other pursuit. Then we would be 

 entitled to our representative, and thus 

 avoid the fears of Mr. Heddon and 

 others, and apiculture would become a 

 pursuit into which the Government 

 would delight to look, and for which it 

 would afl'ord protection. 



E. R. Garrett. 



G. H. Ashworth thought it perfectly 

 right that bees be taxed. 



W. S. Dorn Blaser thought the indus- 

 try could not receive proper attention 

 from State and county authorities un- 

 less bees were taxed. 



John Conser thought it would be satis- 

 factory to have bees taxed, and bee- 

 keepers would feel more independent. 



R. B. Leahy would like to see bees 

 taxed at a given rate per hive. 



G. P. Morton did not know whether 

 bees ought to be taxed, or not consid- 

 ered as property ; let the Government 

 take the lead. 



After further discussion the question 

 was referred to the Committee on Reso- 

 lutions. 



On motion, a question-box was estab- 

 lished, and the President appointed as a 

 committee to answer questions, John 

 Conser, G. H. Ashworth and E. R. 

 Garrett. 



The following essay was read by G. 

 H. Ashworth: 



Queen Restrictors. 



I believe that I agreed with Brother 

 Rouse that I would say something on the 

 subject of queen restrictors, or as I have 

 named my device the '"Queen and 



