196 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



friends publicly right in his own house. 

 After all, this is a kind of family discussion, 

 and if there's no ill will in it, good may re- 

 sult. But, to return to that "we." It's 

 a relic of — not exactly barbarism, but 

 something akin to it. It's something 

 brought down from before the times 

 when "all men were born free and 

 equal." It comes from old times when the 

 king was more than all his subjects, and 

 said: "We, the king." I have just looked 

 through the editorial columns of one of our 

 ablest city dailies, and I don't find a single 

 "we." True, there's no "I," but, with a 

 number of editors it may seem best to have 

 things impersonal. In the case of the Re- 

 view, here is our personal friend whom 

 many of us know and cherish as a modest 

 man who would scorn to set himself up on 

 stilts above every one else, every month, by 

 the bonds of an absurd old custom that 

 many are getting away from, being made to 

 say, " It takes any two of you to equal nie." 

 In the very leader before me appears the 

 conflict between the antiquated absurdity 

 and his real feelings, leading him into the 

 grammatical blunder of saying : "My friend, 

 * * * we should be glad, etc." 



As to advertisements I'm not exactly with 

 you. Get all the honorable advertisements 

 you can, but don't mix them with the bee- 

 keeping advertisements. Every advertise- 

 ment you get of a good buggy, watch or 

 sewing machine helps you to send me more 

 information about Ijees. 



After saying this much in condemnation, 

 you may expect me to say something in com- 

 mendation. Well, I haven't the ream of 

 paper. 



Maeengo, 111., Oct. 22, 1890. 



When we have pulled an article of Doctor 

 Miller's out of its envelope, we always take 

 another look to see if there has not been a 

 little private note slipped in beside the arti- 

 cle. If none is to be found, we are disap- 

 pointed. This time there was no disappoint- 

 ment, and we don't believe the Doctor will 

 care if we print the following : — 



' Friend H., I feel just a little uncomfort- 

 able about the spirit that may appear in 

 what I have written. I think you will know 

 that there are none but kind feelings in it, 

 and you have my full permission to change 

 or cut out any part to make it appear rigb+ 

 to others. 



I'm so sorry you're not going to Keokuk. 

 Hastily but lovingly yours, 



C. C. Miller. 



Friend Miller, no one doubts your kindly 

 spirit and friendship. In fact, you have 

 been the kindest of any of the correspond- 

 ents, because jou have found the most 

 fault, and, as a reward, we will " talk back " 

 to you. 



You seem inclined to class every rural in- 

 dustry, except bee keeping, under the head 

 of "general farming," A general farmer 



keeps a few cows, a flock of sheep, some 

 swine, some horses, some hens, turkeys, 

 ducks, etc., and has, perhaps, a few colonies 

 of bees. He raises hay, corn, wheat, oats, 

 potatoes, fruit of different kinds and some 

 garden stuff. In short, he has a little of 

 everything, and the general farm paper is 

 like him in this respect, (7 has a little of eve- 

 rything. It is not nearly all grain growing 

 and a little bees, nor nearly all horticulture 

 and a little poultry. Now, when a paper 

 steps aside and announces itself as a stock 

 paper, or a bee paper, or a horticultural 

 journal, as the case may be, what sense is 

 there in mixing in some other specialty ? 

 It is simply tending back to the old, mixed, 

 farm paper. Then, again, friend Miller, 

 why should you wish for a paper half bees 

 and half roses ? Why not take one paper 

 devoted to bees and another to roses 'i What 

 advantage is there in having them hitched 

 together ? 



It often happens that a correspondent 

 needs "talking back to," and, if the editor 

 is capable of doing this in a proper manner, 

 it is best that it should be done ; and, still 

 further, in a journal in which each article is 

 upon a different subject, it is difficult to do 

 this without bringing in the cumbrous foot- 

 note, but where nearly all of the articles 

 are upon one topic, as in the Review, it is 

 better, in our opinion, to give a general 

 summing up in one editorial, than to scatter 

 the matter all through the journal at the 

 tail ends of the different articles. 



We cannot answer in I'egard to publishing 

 the Review oftener, raising the price, and 

 doing more reviewing, without taking all of 

 the thunder out of two or three pargraphs of 

 an editorial (already seething in our brain) 

 for the December issue. Wait until then, 

 and full explanations will be made. 



About the editorial " we," we don't care a 

 fig. Honestly, old friend, it seems too un- 

 important to make so much fuss about. 

 Personlly, we would just as soon say " I " as 

 to say "we," and, if we thought it the wish 

 of our readers, the change would be made. 

 We have no defense to make except custom : 

 but so long as, probably, not one editor in 

 one hundred has discarded the editorial 

 " we," we are inclined to follow the spirit 

 of the rule given by Pope in his Essay on 

 Criticism : — 



In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold ; 

 Alike fantastic, if too new or old ; 

 Be not the tirst by whom the new are tried, 

 Nor yet the last to lay aside the old. 



