TUm SMERICMM BEE® JQ-UMKMIU. 



841 



as they will be at home, having 

 marked their loeatinn, at the time of 

 their first spring- flight. 

 Peoria, Ills. 



THE UNION". 



Foiirtli Report of its Work, by 

 the Oeueral manager. 



The General Manager oongratulatcs 

 the members of the National Bee- 

 Keepers' Union upon the fact that so 

 far NOT ONE case, which the Union has 

 deemed it proper to defend, has been 

 decided against the Union — its success- 

 ful banner still waves triumphantly 

 over the members, and makes the 

 " Bond of Union" still stronger than 

 ever. Every well-wisher, as well as 

 member, will, no doubt, add — 



Long may it, in triumph, be waved, 

 Until every bee-keeper sees 



Hisrishts defended and saved. 

 As well as the lives of his bees ! 



It is a well-known fact — one firmly 

 established in the minds of all, that 

 " in Union there is strength ;" and a 

 union of bee-keepers to defend our 

 pursuit from tlie unjust attacks of 

 ignorant or prejudiced persons, is not 

 only desirable, but very necessary to 

 our well-being and general prosperity. 



For this purpose, and for it alone, 

 does the National Bee-Keepers' Union 

 exist — to throw a safe-guard around 

 the pursuit, as well as its devotees. It 

 does not seek a quarrel, but when one 

 is forced upon any of its members, it 

 sets up a " Defense " by its very ex- 

 istence and record. Never yet has it 

 suffered a defeat. While that is a re- 

 cord to be proud of, it is also a xvarning 

 to ignorant and jealous enemies to be- 

 ware how they trifle with the pursuit 

 of apiculture, and to keep tlieir hands 

 off of the interests of its devotees. It 

 warns them that the bee-keepers, as 

 well as the bees, have a sting, with 

 which to torture their enemies ! 



The Union not only seeks to obtain 

 decisions from the highest courts of 

 America, but also to have on record 

 these decisions to be quoted as prece- 

 dents in all the courts of law, and by 

 all the lawyers who practice tlierein. 



Xbe " RlcU » Lawsuit. 



In the lawsuit in New York, men- 

 tioned in our last report, th(! Judge 

 stated that there were no precedents to 

 guide the decision, and hence he ruled 

 adversely to the bees, as did one in 

 Canada, likening an apiary to a pig- 

 sty or a manure pit. Now we are be- 

 ginning to record decisions — to pro- 

 vide precedents ! 



This suit is still pending, the Union 

 having engaged attorneys, and guaran- 

 teed the expense of the appeal from 



the rulings of the Judge, who likened 

 an apiary to " pig-sty or slaughter 

 house" — the jury, being bound by his 

 instructions, awarded damages of six 

 cents. The costs and attorney fees 

 amounted to nearly $500, and the ap- 

 peal will cost about as much more — 

 thus $1,000 will have to be paid when 

 the decision is made, by one side or 

 the other. 



Tbe Arkadelptala Suit. 



Our last report was issued just pre- 

 vious to the trial of this case. Mr. Z. 

 A. Clark's case, who was put into jail 

 at Arkadelphia, Ark., for maintaining 

 his apiary in the suburbs of that city, 

 came on and was tried before the Cir- 

 cuit Court. The case was tried on the 

 "clean-cut" law question, viz : That 

 the " city ordinance was illegal and 

 void." The victory in this case is 

 for the Union, the Circuit Court 

 deciding that the city ordinance was 

 illegal and void — that the keeping of 

 bees was NOT A IVUISAKCE ! ! 



When the prosecution realized that 

 bee-keepers had an organized body for 

 defending the pursuit against the mali- 

 cious attacks of the ignorant and the 

 prejudiced, it weakened — it tried " to 

 hedge" — was willing to dismiss all the 

 cases against Mr. Clark on a pretended 

 informality in his bonds ! 



The city has decided to appeal the 

 case to the Supreme Court. This is 

 very fortunate, for we want a decision 

 from the highest court to declare that 

 bee-keeping is not a nuisance ! The 

 Union has paid the full fees, and it 

 will be ably defended by Judge Will- 

 iams, the most successful attorney in 

 Arkansas. 



Mr. Clark writes this concerning the 

 case, dated Aug. 7, 1888 : 



Everybody in our little city, white and 

 black, are rejoicing, but the antl-bee-council 

 and their tollowers. 



I had 2.5 witnesses summoned in defense 

 of the Union, by wliom I would have 

 proved that the bees were not a nuisance; 

 in fact, I never knew of a team or tfamster 

 beingstung while passing my premises. 



When tlie case came on, the City Attor- 

 ney began to show weakness by trying to 

 turn us out of court, on a motion to dismiss 

 all tlie cases against me, on tlie informality 

 of my bonds, stating that my boud was not 

 sufficient, but Judge ilearu over-ruled the 

 motion. 



When my attorneys. Judges S. W. Will- 

 iams, Witnerspoon, Murray, and McMillan 

 made a motion to dismiss the case against 

 me upon the voldncss of the ordinance, 

 Judge Williams made an able speecli in de- 

 fense of bee-keepers, in whicli he showed 

 that he knew sometliing about bees himself. 



After which. Judge Hearn stated to the 

 attorneys that he liad lived a long time in 

 Arkadelphia, and that bees had been kept 

 here all the time, and that he had not heard 

 any complaint until this case came up— and 

 that the keeping of bees -per se was not a 

 nuisance. 



He said that the case would go to the 

 Supreme Court, no matter in which way it 

 was decided, but stated he wanted to be 



found on the right side, when decided in 

 the Supreme Court. 



He then sustained our motion to dismiss 

 the case, and declared the ordinance void. 

 The City Attorney then gave notice of an 

 appeal. Hence, we go up higher, amid the 

 cry of " victory " and " hallelujahs." 



This shows what brothers can do when 

 banded together, with a Captain like 

 Thomas G. Newman, to direct our battles 

 against ignorance and the prejudicial whims 

 of an ignorant populace. Z. A. Claek. 



Mr. A. R. Nisbet, a bee-keeper of 

 Dobyville, Ark., writes as follows con- 

 cerning the trial : 



I wish all the members of the National 

 Bee-keepers' Union, and in fact all the bee- 

 keepers of America, could have been with 

 us during the light at Arkadelphia on the 

 4th inst. ]t would have made them all feel 

 good to have heard Judge S. W. Williams 

 read section after section of law, in Mr. 

 Clark's favor, showing that a man's right to 

 liold property is paramount to all legisla- 

 tive power ; and any attempt to take away 

 such right is unconstitutional. He certainly 

 made an able defense, proving to all pres- 

 ent that he was equal to the task before 

 him. 



The Bee-keepers have constitutional 

 rights which they slioukl defend — 

 and cannot be just to themselves and 

 their sttccessors in the business if they 

 do not defend them ! 



Hlgli Indorsement. 



The following resolution was passed 

 "oy a unanimous vote at the Interna- 

 tional Bee-Association last September : 



Resolved, That it is the sense of this 

 Society that the National Bee-Keepers' 

 Union has tieen productive of good, and de- 

 serves the hearty, moral and tinancial sup- 

 Sort of all bee-keepers, and that the General 

 lanager deserves and receives the hearty 

 gratitude of this Association for his very 

 earnest, efficient and disinterested services. 



Honey Production. 



In addition to the many sensational 

 stories about " manufactured comb 

 honey," the daily papers last August 

 published an article which stated that 

 the St. Louis Society of Microscopists 

 had examined several hundreds of 

 samples of honej*, and found the ma- 

 jority of them adulterated. Knowing 

 tliat this was untrue, I wrote to the 

 editor of the Journcd of Agriculture, the 

 paper to which the matter was cred- 

 ited, and he has given this explanation: 



The facts are as follows : John C. Falk, 

 a practical druggist and active member of 

 the St. Louis Microscopic Society, examined 

 ahout a score of specimens of honey ob- 

 tained from dealers in St. Louis. He found 

 pollen in some, and detected its absence in 

 others, but he did not discover an evidence 

 of adulteration in any. Those without 

 pollen appeared to be otlierwise pure. He 

 look a few specimens to a meeting of the 

 society, and incidentally mentioned the 

 facts recited. A reporter of a daily paper 

 was present and heard his remarks. Some 

 members informally examined specimens, 

 but expressed no unfavorable opinion of 

 them. That was all there was to it. 



The next day that daily paper had an 

 article which purported to be an account of 

 the investigation of the subject of honey by 

 the society. The editor of this ilepartment 

 never saw the report, never wrote anything 



