I9i 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



foot notes. They certainly get a great deal 

 of individuality into them. Nevertheless I 

 would like to see a reform in this matter. 



One thing I have often criticised (mentally 

 only) in one of our leading journals, and 

 that is the valual)le space taken up in the 

 head lines to the articles. Small caps of 

 plain type and no unnecessary 1 )lank paper 

 between the contributions hints to the reader 

 that the editor has plenty of " copy," and is 

 not spreading the matter to fill up. 



But I have noticed an improvement in 

 this respect and think all the leading editors 

 will adopt it sooner or later. 



Why is it necessary to say at the head of 

 every article, in prominent type, " Writhni 

 for the BumhJe Bee Buglef'' Would it not 

 be better to let the reader iiifer that all arti- 

 cles were original when no credit was given 

 for copied ones ? I like to see the name of 

 the writer at the head of every article. Life 

 is too short to wade through anonymous 

 writings to see whether they are worth the 

 labor. 



Having said so much that sounds like 

 criticism, let me close by saying I am proud 

 of our bee journals — proud of the able, con- 

 scientious, fearless, and untiring editors who 

 are holding up the standard of American 

 apiculture. " With malice toward none and 

 charity for all," most of whom I count as 

 personal friends, I bid you all God speed in 

 the noble and heroic endeavor to do honor to 

 our calling and at the same time " keep the 

 wolf from the door." 



FoKEST City, Iowa, 



Oct. 20, 1890. 



Put the Name of the Special Topic on the 

 First Page.— The "Extracted" Depart- 

 ment too Much Neglected. 



S. H. GAKIS. 



I! HE RvEviEW for October just suits 

 my idea of what a technical journal 

 should be — no nonsense about it. On 

 the whole, I think you have managed 

 your "bee paper" with intelligence and 

 good taste, and deserve the success you have 

 won: yet, as nearly everybody believes that 

 the editor of a newspaper or periodical needs 

 a little help to properly manage such publi- 

 cations, I would like to suggest a point or 

 two on improvement. 



I should like to see, on the first page of the 

 Review, in plain type, an announcemt of 

 the special topic under discussion ; or per- 

 haps a table of contents would be better. If 

 the Review were read only once and then 

 thrown aside, there would be no special 

 need of indicating the topic, but / often de- 

 sire to " review the Review," and then it is 

 sometimes necessary to turn over a leaf or 

 two of several numbers before the one sought 

 for is found. 



I should also like to see a " rule " between 

 the columns. So much for dress. 



As to subject matter, which is generally ex- 

 cellent, I would like to see a more freiiuent 

 use of the "Extractor." In your regularly 

 published prospectus, subscribers are prom- 



ised "the cream of the other journals ; " im- 

 plying a service of savory literary dishes in 

 a concentrated form, in the columns of the 

 Review. If we are really getting all there 

 is, I am inclined to say that we ought to feel 

 truly sorry for the readers of tha "other 

 journals," as it appears that they must be 

 subsisting entirely on skim-milk. 



Newark, N. J. 



Nov. 1, 18!)0. 



Bees Alone or Mixed Depends on the Editor. 



—He May be a Dealer.— Stop Paper when 



Time is Tip.- KeepOutTrashy "Ads." 



A. J. COOK. 



IHIS is a good topic for the Review. 



literature is the fountain from 



whence we expect advancement in 



improved methods, better theories 



and general progress. How well then that 



the fountain be kept right. 



In your leader you pronounce against the 

 admission of anything but bee matters. 

 True, the emphasis should be on bees and 

 apiarian subjects. But why may not the 

 editor feel of his readers by putting in some- 

 thing else. If they like it, it will soon be 

 evident ; if not, the kicks will be just as 

 pronounced. The sul)Scription list as well 

 as private letters form the pulse which the 

 editor may constantly feel. I am sure it is 

 his right, his privilege, yes, duty, to intro- 

 duce whatever he thinks will improve his 

 paper. He will soon know whether he has 

 erred in judgment or no. Mach depends 

 upon the editor. If through singleness of 

 purpose he brings in outside themes, and by 

 vivifying them with his best thought makes 

 them live, then he will succeed. If he lug 

 them in to fill space, and make up for spar- 

 city of real valuable bee discussion, then of 

 course he will fail. Some of our bee papers 

 kave done this — and wisely, I believe, as 

 their growing subscriptions plainly aver. 

 Others have tried it to sustain the ebbing 

 breath and have died the quicker for the 

 experiment. You, Mr. Editor, are consist- 

 ent in this advocacy. You are giving us an 

 exclusive bee paper and an excellent one. 

 And yet you did step aside a little in that 

 beautiful picture of your home and home 

 work. Nor did you harm the Review in so 

 doing. 



What you say of quality is excellent and 

 calls for no criticism. I have often wonder- 

 ed why editors did not prune more, and in 

 so doing publish better. I believe it is the 

 editor's prerogative — yes, more, his solemn 

 duty to exclude everthiug that is not clean, 

 manly, instructive, valuable and true. Yes, 

 benefit to the readers should be the editor's 

 watchword. 



In the matter of supplies, again all de- 

 pends upon the editor. If he is not man 

 enough to rise above mere selfish considera- 

 tions, his editorship will soon cease, whether 

 he sell supplies or not. If a man, his pat- 

 rons will soon learn the fact, and lihink no 

 less of him as a dealer than as an exclusive 

 editor. . As a dealer he can afford to give us 



