THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



151 



the past three years. The other is a 

 neiijhhor's daiij^hter who liappened to be 

 ill at the time. The ]ilu)tos. were taken 

 with my own camera, bnl the exposures 

 were made by a young fellow; a friend of 

 the visiting lady. 



The walk shown in the photo, of the 

 house is a short-cut from the town, '^'he 

 hedge on the right is i)rivet, and that on 

 the left cedar. The carriage-drive comes 

 in at the other side of tlie lawn, and is 

 not taken in the picture. 



The other photo, shows a sauntering 

 ground, along the east side of the orchard. 

 In the summer it is largely patronized by 

 town people and strangers, as, from all 

 points, it commands a complete view of 

 the town, the harbor, and the lake. The 

 maples on the right grow on the immedi- 

 ate brow of the hill, as von may see by 

 their roots. The hill is i6(Tfeet above the 

 valley in which the greater part of the 

 town is located. The row of evergreens 

 is designed as a winil-breakto the orchard 

 from the lake breeze. You will notice a 

 privet hedge along its liase. It was 

 rather handsome when well trimmed; but 

 both its beauty and its usefulness have de- 

 parted; as it is now overshadowed by the 

 spruce. Some of the trees in the distance 

 are a part of the orginal bush — the only 

 piece now within the residential part of 

 Owen Sound. It forms a good back- 

 ground and is a protection to the orchard 

 as well. The grounds embrace about 4-'4 

 acres — and they are admitted, I believe, 

 to be the finest site in the town. They 

 cost me |io,ooo. When "Sir. Hooker of 

 London was staging with me during the 

 Chicago p-air we were one evening sitting 

 on the rustic seat in the distance, when 

 he declared he had witnes.sed no finer 

 prospect in all his travels in Europe. 

 Mr. Cowan was also much taken with the 

 situation. Mr. and Mrs. Cowan stopped 

 with ine for ten days during their first 

 visit in 1887. My apiary was located in 

 the orchard which lies behind the hou.se 

 and inside the row of e\ ergreens shown 

 here. I have occupied this place for 

 twenty-three years, and laid out the 

 grounds, planted all the trees, shrubs, 

 hedges, etc., which are now, like mjself, 

 getting old. 



I fear that my bee-keeping correspon- 

 dence is about over. I have no bees at 

 home now; not being able to attend to 

 them. I still have an ajjiary about fifteen 

 miles from here; but I do little in it ])er- 

 sonally. 



Am pleased to see the Review maintain 

 its high degree of excellence. 

 Yours trulv, 



R.McKnight. 



THE TAYLOR-MIU^KK-SIC CONTROVKRSV. 

 Two good friends of mine. Dr. Miller 

 and Mr. Taylor, are using a great many 

 words in di.scussing a subject that is of 

 little moment to beekeepers. It is true 

 that they have kept the original subject 

 in view and used arguments instead of 

 personalities or abuse, and the only fault 

 I have to find is that so much space is 

 being used in the discussion of a subject 

 in which bee-keepers, as bee-keepers, can 

 have but little interest. I think that the 

 discussion of Trusts, which was cut oflf at 

 a very interesting point, would have been 

 much more profitable than this one re- 

 garding the use of a verb as a noun, the 

 meaning of the word ' ' sic, ' ' etc. Why 

 have I allowed it to be continued to such 

 a length? The point is this: If the Re- 

 view, or one of its correspondents, criti- 

 cises the language or methods of a man, 

 it is in dut}' bound to allow that man 

 the fullest opportunity to defend himself. 

 This nmst be done, even if at the ex- 

 pense of considerable space. Let come 

 what will, the Review must l)e fair. 

 However, I see but little necessity now 

 for the saying of much more upon this 

 particular subject. It has been narrowed 

 down until it is simply a matter of per- 

 sonal opinion, and further di.scussion 

 would probably be fruitless. 



One point in Dr. Miller's article in 

 this issue calls for a word of explanation 

 from me. I have reference to where 

 he intimates that the publication of Mr. 

 Taylor's views thus makes those views 

 the view of the Review. I ihiiik not. 

 They are simply the views of Mr. Tay- 

 lor; and the Review is responsible only 

 for the advisability of making them 

 ])ublic. To show how untenable is tlie 

 doctor's position, let me call his atten- 

 tion to the fact that the Review has 

 allowed Mr. Taylor to oppose the use 

 of the word boil as a noun, and it has 

 also allowed the doctor to defend such 

 use. Now, which view is the one up- 

 held by the Review ? If I have never 

 said so before, I will say now, that I 

 consider myself responsible simply for 



