THE; SMERICais: ®E1^ JQJJ^nni^. 



Ill 



NEW LAWS. 



Dcfeciive P«»inls in llie Xew 

 Constitiilioii and By-Laivs. 



Written for the Americaii Bee Journal 

 BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



At the last meeting; of the Nortli 

 Auiericau Bce-Keeper.s' Society, some 

 discussion was liail with reference to 

 increasing tlie usefulness of the Society, 

 and especially with reference to mak- 

 ing it representative in character. 

 Some members warmly opposed anj' 

 attempt at change, because impossible 

 to carrj' out, and then with singular 

 Inconsistency at a later time, jumped 

 to the other extreme and assisted in 

 making sueh a sweeping change as to 

 revolutionize the whole afl'air. 



At the Chicago convention in 1887, 

 Mr. Thomas G. Newman laid before 

 the Society a carefullj-'prcpared plan 

 for carrying out important clianges, 

 evidencing no little amount of unsel- 

 fish labor in the preparation. Mr. 

 Newman is entitled to a hearly vote of 

 thanks, and the committee appointed 

 to report upon the matter, namely. 

 Prof. A. J. Cook, W. Z. Hutchinson 

 and A. I. Root, deserve a no less hearty 

 vote of — censure, for their neglect to 

 consider and report. 



Without in the least detracting from 

 the labors of Mr. Newman. I consider 

 the action of the Society in adopting 

 an entircdy new constitution and by- 

 laws, which, it is pretty s.afe to say, 

 but few of them had read — I consider 

 the action at least hasty. It was prob- 

 ablj' more than was expected by its 

 framer, for in presenting it at Chicago, 

 he said, "Your committee can easily 

 exclude, revise or make new provisions 

 to suit their own views." Nothing of 

 this kind was done, and it may be 

 pertinent to ask whether the Society 

 were any better prepared to take ac- 

 tion at Columbus than at Chicago. 



However, it is perhaps well that 

 hasty action was taken, rather than no 

 action at all, and in the columns of 

 the bee-papers is a good place to dis- 

 cuss what changes, if any, should be 

 made ; in fact it is entircl}- in order to 

 discuss the whole matter in all its bear- 

 ings. I feel sure that friend Newman 

 will not call in question my good in- 

 tention, even if we should somewhat 

 ditter in our views. Inde(nl, I am con- 

 fident that he will welcome the most 

 rigid scrutiny. 



The most prominent change at- 

 tempted is that of making the Society 

 representative, and if that intention 



can be full}- carried out, the new Con- 

 stitution w'ill be a blessing, even if it 

 makes a less ajiproach to perfection 

 than it now' does. But it must be re- 

 memljered that llic Society can only 

 incite, not compel representation, and 

 on that account it ma}" be better to 

 discu.ss the matter here than at tlie 

 sessions of tlie convention. My only 

 fear is, that those who are not in con- 

 nection witli the Society, may fail to 

 give to the subject the' attention it de- 

 serves. And now, if you phiasc, I will 

 consider somewhat in detail the new 

 Constitution and By-Laws, as pub- 

 lished on page (i'J.). 



CritlciaiuK or tbe Constltation. 



1. The first article reads, "This or- 

 ganization shall be known as 'The 

 International American Bee-Associa- 

 tion,' and shall include in its territory 

 all of the United States and Canada." 

 The very pleasant meeting at Toronto 

 is too fresh in my memory to make me 

 feel tliatthc exclusion of Canada would 

 l>e anything less than a calamity, and 

 tlie name " International American " 

 was evidently framed with that in 

 view, and on tliat account is eminently 

 proper. The name is, however, some- 

 what cumbersome. As " Internationi»l 

 American " means among the nations 

 of America, and as the nations of 

 America are all American, would it 

 not be equally well to simply call the 

 Society '■American Bee-Association," 

 or, still better, "American Bee- 

 Socifety ?" 



2. Section 3 of Art. Ill, requires a 

 majority vote for the reception of each 

 member. Is it necessary to take time 

 for this ? In all the history of the 

 Society has there ever been a case in 

 which an applicant would have been 

 voted out ? 



3. Without being very fully informed 

 on the subject, I doubt the expediency 

 of Art. VII, which says, " S])ecial 

 meetings may be called by the Presi- 

 dent, Secretaiy and Treasurer." 



4. The last clause of Art. II of the 

 By-Laws makes it the duty of the Presi- 

 dent, " at the expiration of his term of 

 office, to deliver an address before the 

 Association." Even with so good a 

 President as Dr. Mason, I think the 

 time could be more profitably occupied 

 in discussion, and if the Doctor should 

 Ix' impeached for a violation of this 

 clause, I will try m}' best to defend 

 him. 



5. The fourth by-law requires the 

 Secretary " to call the names of the 

 members of the Association at the 

 opening of each annual meeting." 

 Except for the time taken, this can do 

 no harm, but in a society so migratory 

 in character, it can do little good. 

 Had tlie roll been called at Columbus, 

 only twelve would have answered. 



6. It is also made the duty of the 

 Secretary " to give notice of all regu- 

 lar meetings of the Association in the 

 bec-]iapcrs, at least four weeks before 

 the time of such meeting." Would not 

 "at least three months before" be 

 better ? 



7. According to Art. VIII, a "Honey 

 Company " is to be formed to sell lionej'. 

 If no thouglit is given to this before 

 tlie formation of such " Honey (Com- 

 pany " at tlie Brantford meeting, will 

 it not be a failure ? And is not the 

 whole business of honey-selling some- 

 tliing so out of the usual line of the 

 Society that it should have been care- 

 fully discussed before agreeing to en- 

 ter upon it at all ? 



Another item that might ivell have 

 received some consideration before its 

 hasty adoption, is that of " prizes for 

 honey" in Art. IX, Sec. 2, Suli-Sec. (2) 

 of the By-Laws ; and still another is 

 found in Art. XI, relating to giving 

 diplomas to experts in bee-keeping. 

 However well this may work in Eng- 

 land where bee-keeping stands on a 

 ditt'crent basis, and where distances 

 arc not so great as in this country, it 

 may well be questioned whether it is 

 desirable or practical in the United 

 States and Canada. Even granting 

 that the committee of three, wlio are 

 to examine candidates, may make ar- 

 rangements so that each one of the 

 three may act separately, I doubt if 

 the three members can lie so located 

 that there shall not be points of ter- 

 ritory one or two thousand miles dis- 

 tant from any or all of them. 



Dlsrnsttlng lis merits. 



It may be asked, what good will 

 come of "discussing these things now ? 

 In reply I may say that it looks to me 

 that when it comes to the matter of 

 carrying out the provisions of the new 

 Constitution and By-Laws, discussion 

 will, almost of necessity, arise, and it 

 may be the better way to look every- 

 thing squarely in the face, and instead 

 of spending "time in the convention, 

 'liscuss the aflair in the columns per- 

 mitted for our use. It is true that I 

 am talking about what I know very 

 little about, and it is quite possible 

 that I am far from right about some if 

 not all the points mentioned, but others 

 may be just as ignorant as I, and light 

 will hurt none of us. 



As I have already intimated, the 

 one thing in the new Constitution 

 making the Society representative, if 

 successfully carried out, over-balances 

 all the defects I have mentioned, if 

 such defects really exist. 



Marengo, Ills. 



[Editorial comments on the New 

 Constitution and By-Laws may be seen 

 on page 708. — Ed.] 



