THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW, 



193 



credit, I went to the bauk and borrowed 

 money enough in a lump to keep all my 

 little debts promptly paid, some of them in 

 advance : certainly my newspaper subscrip- 

 tion in that way. I was prompted to this 

 action by purely selfish motives. It gave 

 me a credit for which I would not to-day 

 take all I am worth. I now find that I can 

 underbuy nearly all of my competitors. For 

 heaven's sake, don't talk about remitting 

 the price of any bee journal in the United 

 States l)y piece meal. If the subscriber has 

 credit, he had better borrow the money, if 

 necessary. If he has not, for heaven's sake 

 let him begin at once to deport himself in a 

 manner that will gain credit. It pays to be 

 honest. It is the most selfish thing a man 

 can do. Our children should be taught that 

 " honesty is the ])est policy : " that " virtue 

 is its own reward : " that they cannot afford 

 to be dishonest, all these things being taught 

 from a purely selfish motive, wholly per- 

 taining to the affairs of this world. That is 

 my idea of it. Your quotation from the 

 editor of the Journalist I consider very apt. 

 I am just now buying a new press and a new 

 tyi)e dress throughout, notwithstanding I 

 have a very good old press, and not half 

 worn out type of another kind. I am doing 

 this to enlarge and improve the appearance 

 and " typographical attractiveness " of my 

 paper, and the ease with which it can be 

 read. , 



Now I have one thought which you have 

 not anticipated in your leader. That is, re- 

 garding the editorial work of weeding out a 

 certain class of contributors. Now we have 

 in our present apicultural journalism, a few 

 very voluminous writers, men of intelligence, 

 at least good education, and men of no small 

 literary mechanical ability. They word 

 well, write vigorously and very learnedly. 

 They are very good literary apiarists. They 

 have a large apiary and much experience in 

 their imagination. They go to their desks, 

 spread out their paper, dip into the ink and 

 begin writing. They pause and - step into 

 their imaginary apiary and look around. 

 The ability above mentioned, together with 

 a vivid imagination, enable this class of 

 writers to pen articles which completely de- 

 lude the average reader. It is only the prac- 

 tical dollar and cent apiarist of some con- 

 siderable literary talent, who can detect this 

 class of writer^, who, let me say, have done 

 more damage in the apicultural world than 

 any other class. They have everything ex- 

 cept practical talent. I believe that the 

 editor of a bee journal should have the natu- 

 ral ability and apicultural experience to get 

 on to these fellows, and further that he 

 should keep them out of his columns. They 

 are usually pseudo-professional men, snide 

 lawyers, quack doctors, etc. They have a 

 thirst for ink-slinging. They want to be 

 heard. It is not what is in them that in- 

 spires them to write, but '' Who is looking 

 at me now ? " It is because they want to be 

 seen and heard, not because they are full of 

 something they want to make known, that 

 they write. You know that a very busy 

 lawyer or doctor does not have time to write 

 for bee journals. It is those who are fail- 

 ures or partial failures in the profession. 



because they lack tact or practical knowl- 

 edge. This gives them time to fool honest 

 honey producers with their well written 

 sophistries. You know them, Mr. Editor, 

 and could give their names. Keep them out 

 of the Review, as you wish to foster the in- 

 terests of your subscribers. 



DowAGiAC, Mich., 



Oct. 2G, 1890. 



Be Courteous. — Preserve the Personality of 



Correspondents. — Don't "Foot Note" 



Every Article, but Put the Author's 



Name Above his Communications. 



EUGENE SECOK. 



f THINK I have noticed an improvement 

 in apicultural journalism in the last 

 twenty years. One thing which espe- 

 cially pleases me is the friendly feeling 

 that exists between most of the editors of 

 rival journals. That this is not always so is 

 to be regretted. If a periodical has no pur- 

 pose to serve other than to gratify a personal 

 spite, or selfish motive of the editor, it cer- 

 tainly ought never to have been l^orn. In 

 other lines of business we see rival firms ex- 

 changing courtesies and living in perfect 

 harmony. Our best newspapers and literary 

 magazines find a nobler work to do than to 

 throw mud at each other. That the leading 

 apicultural journals have come to that also, 

 indicates that there is a field for them above 

 the petty jealousies of vindictive editors — or 

 writers. (3ne thing I like is the personalit\j 

 ( without being personal) of the contributors. 

 I sometimes think editors discourage writers 

 from lieing naturctl. They often take the 

 liberty to leave out a portion of a letter or 

 change its phraseology to suit their ideas. 

 Now rather than they should take that liberty 

 with niy contributions I would have them 

 reject the whole. In fact I maintain editors 

 have no right to mutilate a manuscript. If 

 it doesn't suit them a postal card could in- 

 form the writer, or the waste basket is always 

 handy. An editor ought not to allow any 

 person to use his paper to vent a personal 

 spite, nor to wound the feelings of any read- 

 er or writer, but if this is not attempted the 

 more of the person of the writer appearing 

 the better. His style is a part of himself, 

 and to try to reform it by clipping out or 

 changing is often fatal. Right in line with 

 this idea is the omnipresent " foot note " in 

 some journals. I don't like them. They 

 often betray the editor — that is, they prove 

 he has no conception of the thing he is com- 

 menting on. Why not let every man (or 

 woman) have their own way untrammeled 

 by individual criticisms or fulsome praise, 

 and then, editorially treat of such subjects as 

 are presented by correspondents, or suggest 

 others ? I do not wish to be understood as 

 condemning such explanatory notes as are 

 often necessary, and such as are always 

 found in journals and books on all subjects. 

 Perhaps, however, in my desire to see the 

 journals reach my ideal, I may be destroying 

 the lyersonality of the editors -who write the 



