TBE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



196 



a better paper, will keep better informed ou 

 apiarian devices, and will be able to accom- 

 modate his subscribers in many ways that 

 he could not do were he only an editor. 

 Were I an editor of a bee paper I should 

 keep supplies, and then aim to disarm all 

 criticism by my impartial methods. 



I say stop the paper when the time is out. 

 This is dignified, business-like, and I think 

 the course of our first class periodicals. 

 The Yoiith^s Conqjanion, Bural New Yorker, 

 New York Nation and Harper^ s Weekly stop 

 when the subscription expires. That is 

 business. I like it. 



As to advertisements, you are entirely 

 sound, I believe. Of course the editor is 

 sorely tempted. But when money is offered 

 to secure the admittance of an advertisement 

 that he knows or suspects is a fraud, or even 

 that he knows nothing of, then is the time 

 to say " Get thou behind me, Satan." Even 

 many of our first papers admit advertise- 

 ments that should make the editors blush. 

 I like a paper like the Rural New Yorker, 

 that is as careful of its readers in this respect 

 as the editor could be of his own family. 



You are equally happy in your position as 

 to the look or make-up of a paper. The old 

 *4. B. J. is a grand illustration of this posi- 

 tion. 



I am glad, Mr. Editor, that you have 

 called out the discussion on this subject. I 

 shall await eagerly the discussion that shall 

 follow. It cai' hut be valuable all along the 

 line. 



AOBICULTUBAL COL., Oct. 18, ISJK). 



Journals Can't be all Alike; Why Doesn't 



The " Review " Review Morel The 



Editorial "we" Objectionable. 



DR. C. C. MILLEE, 



R(). H., while your leader,, as usual, is 

 good, it sounds a good deal as if you 

 thought that every paper that had 

 anything to say about bees ought to 

 be cast in the same mould.. Do you think 

 that is really the case? You say "agricul- 

 tural journals devoted to the cultivation of 

 grain, stock growing, bees, poultry, etc., an- 

 swer their purpose well." That is, you admit 

 that a paper with general farming and a 

 very little about bees is all right, but you are 

 not willing to admit that a paper with a 

 great deal about bees and a little bit about 

 general farming is all right. A general 

 farmer doesn't jump all at once into a full 

 fledged, bee-keeping specialist. There are 

 all grades of them. Doesn't it need all 

 grades of papers to suit them ? I live by 

 bee-keeping, and I want a paper with noth- 

 ing in it but bees — no, if there were one that 

 devoted half its pages to rose-growing, that 

 would suit me best. In general, I think 

 those who keep as many as six colonies of 

 bees will be well served with an exclusive 

 bee journal. So, while I'm with you, in 

 general, I think there may be some excep- 

 tions. The whole thing hinges on what 

 people want. A combined poultry and bee 



journal has been tried several times, but 

 with no very great show of success, and I 

 suppose it is because there are not enough 

 men who are equally interested in the two 

 departments. If half the bee-keepers were 

 specially interested in poultry, then such a 

 combination ought to be successful. I said 

 the whole thiug hinges on what the people 

 want. I will add to that the special ability 

 of the editor. If you happened to know 

 more about butter-making than any one 

 else in the world and were an enthusiast in 

 that line you might well have a department 

 of that kind. I'm rather glad you don't. 

 But I'll join you heartily in inveighing 

 against having things mixed so that I must 

 wade through a whole column before I know 

 whether it contains bees or not. Let each 

 department be fenced off and properly la- 

 beled. At least, let the heading of each ar- 

 ticle tell me what to expect. 



Now I'm going to embrace my opportu- 

 nity to be personal and abuse the editor of 

 the Review. If I believed that all bee jour- 

 nals ought to be cast in the same mould, 

 then I should certainly want a review depart- 

 ment in each one. Some have such a depart- 

 ment. Some editors don't, and they are 

 wise in the omission, simply because they 

 haven't the ability to make a success of it. 

 Suppose I take all the bee papers what do I 

 want of a re-hash V Well, I do want it. 

 After I have read them all, it's worth a good 

 deal to me to have some one with special 

 ability in that direction, point out whatever 

 is new and good in the mass that is said: per- 

 haps throwing upon it a little light that I had 

 not had. If I take no other paper, the review 

 is truly valuable. Now here is a bee journal 

 that lays special claim to being a review by 

 its very name. The first number that I lay 

 my hands on is that for August. Looking it 

 through somewhat carefully I do not see a 

 single line that can be fairly called a review. 

 It can hardly be said that lack of matter is 

 the excuse. Is it lack of ability? Why, 

 bless you, W. Z. Hutchinson has a special 

 gift as a reviewer. I don't know that all the 

 other editors rolled into one could so pithily 

 give, in a short space, all the valuable points 

 in a month's reading. So, Mr. Editor, 

 whatever you may send to others, put some 

 review in every Review you send me. 



If you had the strength, I should like to 

 see the price of the Review raised to $1.00 

 and have it come every two weeks. 



I'd like to see you give up the absurdity of 

 the editorial "we." Now please, Mr. Edit- 

 or, will you give us any decent reason, ex- 

 cept that of custom, why W. Z. Hutchinson 

 should write himself "we," any more than 

 should C. G. Miller or any other contributor? 

 And this brings out another fault of the Re- 

 view. There's a plain question asked of 

 you, but I don't expect any answer. You 

 ought to talk back more. There's a little too 

 much editorial dignity. If something is 

 said that would surely bring a reply if said 

 in your immediate presence, it ought to have 

 a printed reply, whereas, it may have a re- 

 ply somewhere in the editorial columns, but 

 oftener not at all. Look here, friend H., it 

 just begins to look to me not exactly the 

 right thing for me to abuse one of my best 



