218 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



journal that was what the Review set out to 

 be. Yes we have even seriously considered 

 it. The special number idea was a good one. 

 I appreciate it, the editorials I enjoy even 

 if I differ, and the plain and neat appear- 

 ance of the naper I like, as well as the ar- 

 rangement of the advertisements. But the 

 writers have narrowed down to a certain 

 circle. The writings of some of them I care 

 very little about. The tojiics are not, it 

 seems to me, taken up in a broad way ; those 

 writers most respected and having the sound- 

 est views from all parts of the country are 

 not as a rule secured. The majority of the 

 articles seem to be from those in your own 

 circle of sympathizers ; those having ideas 

 about the same. Of course it is all right to 

 have them, but there should be others, in 

 order to get the best support. You cannot 

 afford to have merely local contributors 

 having local views. Instead of having an 

 idea and getting others to help nail it. you 

 should get those taking opposite ground as 

 well, and not only invite all, as you do, but 

 treat the subject so broadly and liberally 

 that they will not feel they are intruding, or 

 will be frozen out, or advantage taken 

 of their views or arguments. I know a 

 number of our soundest and most extensive 

 bee keepers, whose names call out respect 

 anywhere, who read the Review and feel 

 that way ; they could and otherwise would 

 say a good deal, and without pay, Ijut don't 

 like the one-sided arbitrary way things are 

 settled. They feel there is no show at all, 

 and they will keep out of it. 



Now if this sounds unpleasant, just give 

 me the credit of writing it out of good will 

 and from interest in the Review. 



I thought you meant to be fair, so I wrote 

 you once about the pollen theory, asking 

 why you didn't give the other side. You 

 promised to, and I sent you an article by the 

 editor of the Br-itish Bee Journal, and one 

 by myself in the Homestead, and asked that 

 they be used in the Extracted column. You 

 had just before written an editorial and 

 partly settled it for your readers in a one- 

 sided way with the evidence all on one side. 



Well, though you did not use it I thought 

 you were short of room and might have 

 some plan in the future to air the pollen 

 theory, and did not mind it, but you have 

 not used it yet. I cannot and will not 

 think you wish to do as some do, manip- 

 ulate to suit themselves and friends with- 

 out regard to justice. 



Now, friend Hutchinson, I hope you will 

 brace up, and, if your time is limited, make 

 some arrangements to have your type-setting 

 done by some one who can not write or edit. 

 Take the time you would be doing that in the 

 outdoor air, riding a " safety " or in a buggy, 

 and use your muscle more out of doors, and 

 when you are inside let the energy all go to l>ee 

 reading, revising, extracting, writing edi- 

 torials and editing articles. Don't let a 

 good thing slip through your fingers. Make 

 your Review at least half extracts and re- 

 views and get every available man in every 

 part of the country having special knowledge 

 relating to your topic to give his opinion, 

 and don't, like a judge and jury combined, 

 settle the question once for all when the evi- 

 dence is but partly in on one side only. 



I was glad Dr. Mason gave you that hit at 

 the convention about the Review not being 

 a review at all, but a topical journal, as also 

 did Dr. Miller in his article in last number. 

 I see you say nothing to it in your last edi- 

 torial. I cannot help asking ivhy did you 

 make it wholly a special number ? 



I have tried to say what I mean without 

 plastering the letter so thick with compli- 

 ments and expressions of good will that it 

 will amount to nothing, but it may for all 

 of that. Bee keepers were much pleased 

 I think, with the way you started out ; espe- 

 cially with the proposed plan and platform 

 of the Review ; but, on the whole, many have 

 been disappointed ; though, as they want to 

 help you along, you may not feel it in your 

 subscription list. But, if you had, or if you 

 will now, work it out on the same line you 

 proposed, you can, I believe, soon be finan- 

 cially, and in every other way, as strong as 

 any bee journal in the country. 



Kingston, R. I., Nov, 17th, 1890. 



It is but fair to Mr. Cushman to explain 

 that the above was written as a private letter, 

 but we obtained permission to publish it. 

 " Had I been writing for publication," said 

 Mr. Cushman, " I should have used more 

 moderation and less freedom." And that, 

 friend. Cushman, would have destroyed the 

 charm of the article. Your outspoken frank- 

 ness, combined with such courtesy, is ad- 

 mirable. 



The first editorial in this issue explains all 

 that is necessary in regard to lack of "Ex- 

 tracts " in previous numbers. We are glad 

 to learn, from so many sources, that an 

 " Extrac*^ed Department" will be appre- 

 ciated. 



