THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



49 



Iwilinjr point; but it behooves those who 

 would teach "that because boiling a culture 

 of foul brood fifteen minutes does not 

 destroy the germs thev would not there- 

 fore be destroyed by filteen minutes boil- 

 ing in hone}-, to first show that the con- 

 ditions are the same; since it is well 

 known that the boiling points of liquids 

 vary widely. 



Another case of ill-considered change 

 of opinion, as it seems to me, is charge- 

 ably to the same esteemed friend; and 

 that is in the matter that has recently 

 been discussed concerning the hostility of 

 bees to dark, colors. Formerly he held 

 that thei'e was no such hostility; but a 

 few "reports" came in, which, in so far 

 as they went, at least, had no foundation 

 in sound season, so far as I could discern, 

 and our good friend is found on the other 

 side of that question. The cause of truth 

 is advanced by careful, cautious, sober 

 loyality to it. 



There is another item — -a small matter, 

 but in the same general line. Mr. Da- 

 dant, in speaking of his large hives, said 

 that they would cost about twice as much 

 as the small ones; whereupon Mr. Calvert 

 makes out an estimate showing that they 

 would cost but 40 to 50 per cent. more. 

 Then the editor (Gleanings, 9) remarks 

 "It shows that you [Mr. Dadant] meant 

 to be entirely fair." Of course, no one 

 suspects Mr. Dadant of ever meaning to 

 be unfair. But it seems strange to me 

 that he .should be commended for fairness 

 on account of a case in which he made a 

 statement that was manifestly not fair, if 

 Mr. Calvert's estimate was correct, as it 

 undoubtedly was. .\n injurious state- 

 ment about a hive one favors is even 

 more liable to injury than one about a 

 hive one opposes. 



IS THERE .\NY OBJECTION TO PLAIN, HON- 

 EST, STR.\IGHT-KORWARD, OUT- 

 SPOKEN L.VNGUAOE? 



Somnambuli.st ( Progressive Bee-Keep- 

 er, page 332, for 189S 1 reads me a lecture 

 on some of my past criticisms; and be- 

 gins by asking "R. L., are you really 



more than mortal, that you do not usual- 

 ly value coni])linients very highly? or 

 have you lost faith in mankind? If so, 

 why so ?' ' Wake up, Sommy, and read all 

 I said. Did I not clearly intimate that 

 I received comfort from compliments that 

 bore the .stamp of genuineness? You 

 must admit there are a good many coun- 

 terfeits — more counterfeits than real, in- 

 deed. I do not value such very highly. 

 Do you Sommy ? that is, when you are 

 wide awake ? Nor have I lost faith in 

 mankind — the difficulty is to reach, /. ^., 

 to find mankind. Have 3'ou never heard 

 that language is used to conceal thought? 

 Like the nets that have been used about 

 war vessels, as a protection against tor- 

 pedos, language is thrown around man to 

 prevent intimate contact. It takes a long, 

 long time, sometimes, to get acquainted. 

 Genuine, honest, plain talk is not liked 

 b}- most; they cannot bear it. They like 

 it colored, or clouded, or honeyed. The 

 leaders frown on it sometimes. They 

 like truth, at least partially draped, so no 

 one will be shocked; and no one's feel- 

 ings hurt. Why, only the othei day, I 

 read this in Gleanings, 21, "I always be- 

 lieved in fair honest criticism, even to the 

 extent of plain talk, when the exigencies 

 call for it; but this latter should always 

 be used sparingly." Isn't it true, Som- 

 my, that that sutjstantiates all I have 

 said ? Can there be fair, honest criticism 

 without plain talk ? And if plain talk is 

 the essence of honest criticism, why in 

 the name of honesty should it always be 

 used sparingly? No, I haven't lost faith 

 in humanity; but I would like to get the 

 screen away. And then, Somnn-, don't 

 you think there should be a distinction 

 made between plain language and per- 

 sonal and abusive language? I'or in- 

 stance, such language as you find in 

 Gleanings, 19, where one writer says of 

 another, "He certainly doesn't know 

 what he is talking about. One would 

 naturally suppose by reading his letter 

 tliat he was a large land-owner, with 

 cattle on a thousand hills, and that sweet- 

 clover had become a great nuisance to 



