rtmrn mmemicisih: bk® j^-oMif-sir. 



491 



patented hive,* entirely casting aside 

 the main features of his former hive. 

 While I allowed the Doctor to use a 

 part of my inventions in his latter-day 

 hive, he praised them as I ha\e Ijefore 

 ))ublished in this Journal ; Init now 

 he repudiates their value altogether. I 

 am not blaming any one, but simply 

 telling how it is, which the reconls 

 show. 



The Doctor mentions my ilaim to 

 handling hives more and frames less. 

 By way of modifications of the Lang- 

 stroth "hive and discoveries in manipu- 

 lation, I had succeeded, much to my 

 gratification, in "handling liivcs more 

 and frames less," and so wrote to this 

 Journal before I invented my new 

 hive. My great satisfaction realized 

 from such manipulation, was one of 

 the principal factors which led to my 

 late invention, and I have found that I 

 made no mistake. 



The Doctor says that " at last it ap- 

 peared that the new hive was not what 

 it was represented to be ; in fact, it was 

 a fraud." I would ask, to wliom did 

 that appear ? Now I consider this 

 statement not only unkind, but un- 

 trutliful, whether wilfully so or not. I 

 know of no reason why those who did 

 not like the hive would not be as apt 

 to so report in this Journal as those 

 who did, and of those who did report, 

 the majority in favor was unprccedent- 

 edly overwhelming. But the Doctor 

 says that over four hundred were as 

 silent as the tomb. Is this strange ? 

 When we consider the thousands of 

 bee-keepers who read bee-periodicals, 

 how many are thei'e who can be in- 

 duced to write anything for the pub- 

 lic eye ? 1 can show hundreds of pri- 

 vate letters speaking in praise of the 

 new hive, and I think I have but one 

 or two reports of failure with it. The 

 same mail which brought the Doctor's 

 article to my desk, brought tliree let- 

 ters of praise for my new liive. One 

 of these I have filed away and forgot- 

 ten the name, but I will quote from 

 the other two, as follows : 



M. 8. Morgan, of South Klgln, Ills., says : " 1 have 

 17 of tbo new hives in use, and they are just the 

 thing. If wu get any honey this year, it will be be- 

 cause of the hew hives." 



Geo. W. Peck, of Koselle. N. J., writes : " It ia a 

 pleasure to handle bees in your improved hives. 1 

 getmore lioney with less labor than with tlie Amer- 

 ican style of hives, ami the bees are always under 

 ■easy control." 



I quote from these two letters only 

 because they came in the same mail 

 wit* tlic Doctor's article, as I said be- 

 fore. I can show "stacks" of the 

 same kind. It seems to me that this 

 completely answers the Doctor's claim 

 of "fraud." I should be glad if my 

 late invention could be left by honest 

 men to " .stand or fall " on its merits. 



My new style of reversible surplus 

 case referred to by the Doctor, is, in my 

 judgmertt, far superior to anj- other 

 wide-frame super yet known to bee- 



keepers ; but as I have said in my cir- 

 culars, they arc more costly than I 

 could wish, ami for those who prefer 

 to work without separators, ni}- old 

 style of cheaper surplus-case is, as the 

 Dt)ctor says, well-nigh perfection, never 

 having been improved. I have been 

 astonished at the tendency to praise 

 viiy less valuable, unpatented devices, 

 wliile making war upon my more mer- 

 itorious inventions upon which I ob- 

 tained letters patent. 



The Doctor discourses on the divisi- 

 ble brood-cliamber of the new hive. I 

 will say that it is one of the best func- 

 tions therein possessed, and has 

 brought hundreds of splendid testi- 

 monials. That it has ever been suc- 

 cessfully handled as represented, in my 

 apiary, and by a large majority of bee- 

 keepers, and that, too, in some cases 

 where the hive has been improperly 

 constructed— all this I stand ready to 

 prove by letters ou tile in my secretary, 

 and by sworn testimony, if necessary. 

 The Doctor says: "Why use 16 

 brood-frames when 8 can be handled 

 just as quickly, and answer the same 

 purpose ?" I will answer, because 

 they do not answer the same purpose ; 

 but if any one thinks they will, there 

 is no objection in using them that way, 

 making the brood-chamber a single 

 story, in which case it will carry out 

 a part of the valuable functions of my 

 lat(! invention, and do not let it be for- 

 gotten that it will come strictly within 

 the limits of my patent. 



The Doctor speaks of a case of fail- 

 ure in performing the shake-out func- 

 tion. I am aware that tliis is not tlie 

 first case of the kind. More is neces- 

 sary than simply the proper con- 

 struction of the hive. Ask Mr. Lang- 

 stroth how many years elapsed after 

 he o'ave the public the valuable func- 

 tions of his hive before that public 

 learned to take advantage of them. 

 Ill the month Mr. Langstroth visited 

 me, much of the time of which was 

 spent in examining and testing the 

 hive in question, every claim of which 

 Father Langsf rotli fouglit step by step, 

 the shake-out function was repeatedly 

 tested, and I will refer the Doctor to 

 Father Langstroth, not only as to 

 whether my men and myself make it 

 work practically or not, but if the im- 

 provements did not succeed perfectly 

 iu accomplishing all that I ever 

 claimed for them. I am glad to be 

 able to cite to you a witness whose in- 

 tellect is a mountain, and whose in- 

 tegrity is a monument. 



The Doctor says he made my hive 

 (which, in the same article, he says 

 was novel and orignalwith me) just as 

 I made it, and to prove it, cites us to 

 his article in Gleanings, where he de- 

 scril^ed and illustrated it. In that 

 article in (ihanings my name is not 



mentioned, and ho claims to be the in- 

 ventor. Is there not a discrepancy 

 here from whicli we can draw no other 

 conclusion than that he was not using 

 my "new and novel" invention, or 

 that he intended to rob me of the 

 cretlit of the same ? 



To conclude, I will say that I thank 

 the Doctor for justly crediting me with 

 the novelty and originality of the hive 

 in question, and hope that the next 

 attack, which will likely be against 

 the novelty, and by some one who sees 

 its merits, maybe promptly met by the 

 vigor of the Doctor's pen. I thank 

 him further for hoping- that I may yet 

 distinguish myself as an inventor, and 

 will say that it is evident that I have, 

 in the eyes of some of our people ; but 

 if I have not in the Doctor's vision, it 

 seems to me that he does not properly 

 value the functions of my late inven- 

 tion which he does not use, and does 

 not know that some of those he does 

 use in his latter-day hive, belong to 

 me. 



History repeats itself. Tlie Lang- 

 stroth invention was a thirty-years' step 

 in advance, and the patent-office rec- 

 ords show a storm of bee-hive pat- 

 ents immediately following. Now ex- 

 amine these records again, and you 

 will see that the same thing has fol- 

 lowed the issuing of my patent. 



Hives possessing cherished and 

 stoutly-defended functions— function.* 

 claimed to be superior to anything we 

 had or were likely to have — at once 

 dropped into oblivion, and out came 

 new hives, some of which were un- 

 patented, and others having patents 

 upon some unimportant and well-nigh 

 useless features, but nearly all in- 

 friuo'ing the "invention " from which 

 their devisers drew their inspiration. 

 But such is life. 

 Dowagiac, Mich. 



[Now, as both disputants have had 

 their statements of the case anew, this 

 closes the controversy in our columns, 

 as intimated on page 475, in the BtE 

 JOUBNAL of last week.— Ed.] 



COMVEMTIOM DIRECTORY. 



1888. Time and Place of Meeting. 



i,,fT •* —loniii County, at Ionia. Mich. 



Aug..f. loniuv. u '■ y^njit,,g5j. Ionia, Mich. 



Aug 14 —Colorado State, at Denver, Colo. 



Aug. 14. voiv J.M.Clark, Sec, Denver, Colo. 



Aug 27.— Btarli County, at Canton, o. 



*"»• Mark Thomson, Sec., Canton, O. 



Saot. 8 -Susquehanna County, at Montrose. Pa 

 sept.o. ^" ^ H. M. Seeley, Sec, Harford. Pa. 



North American, at Coiumbu'*. O. 



■ ■ W.Z. Hutchinson. Sec, Flint, Mich. 



Dec MichiganStato, at.lackson, Mich. 



uec mi'^ t y p Cutting, Sec, Clinton, Mich. 



t^- In order to have this table complete. Secre- 

 taries are requested to forward full particulars of 

 time and place of future meeUngs.-BD. 



