THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



205 



that appear in the Uce-Keeper; but I'm 

 quite sure if some of them had been writ- 

 ten as the letters and sii^iiatures of some 

 I have received, he'd wish the 7t'//o/d' t/iini^ 

 was down in " cohl type." Now, mind 

 you, I don't say that applies to an}' of 

 those that have appeared in the Bee-Keeper 

 for I dont want to tempt any of those wri- 

 ters to have bad thoughts, but I sincerely 

 hope none of our other bee journals will 

 follow the Bee-Keeper in \.\\\s'^/ac simile' ' 

 business. 



What a blessing the type writer is to 

 us poor readers. I once complained to a 

 correspondent (but I'll not tell you he 

 was the editor of one of our best bee-jour- 

 nals) because of his very poor penman- 

 ship, and would you believe he intimated 

 that "people living in glas.*; houses 

 shouldn't throw stones, " and then added 

 that if I knew how much he had to suffer 

 because of his wife's fault finding with his 

 writing he was sure / wouldn't complain. 



Well, he uses a type writer now; but I 

 recently received a business letter from 

 him, written in a beautiful feminine 

 hand, and I supposed his old type writer 

 had given out and he hail pressed a Jieza 

 style into service, dreading to send me 

 another of bis own "scrawls." I have 

 since learned that his wife was the new 

 typewriter, and I don't wonder that she 

 made him suffer for his poor writing in 

 former times. 



If Bro. Doolittle had referred to "cold 

 tvpe" in pictures, having in mind one 

 that appeared in a leading bee-journal 

 less than six months ago, I wouldn't have 

 said a word. I hadn't seen the original 

 of the picture since Aug. '97, and I 

 thought it could hardly be pos.sible that 

 he had become so much of a "bummer" 

 in appearance in so short a time, while 

 his writings bore the same distinctive 

 marks, in most respects, of a clean phys- 

 ical and mental make up as formerly. 

 ( Either he or others are Jiow showing a 

 sort of mental aberration regarding 

 trusts, monopolies, etc. ) I believe if I'd 

 been editor of that journal, and knew as 



well as he did how Bro. Doolittle looks, 

 I'd suppressed the whole edition. But 

 perhaps "ye editor" had a grudge against 

 myself and one other bee-keeper and -v 

 got up that picture on pur^iose for our 

 benefit, and printed it only in the copies 

 he sent us. At any rate, I hope so. 



I agree with Bro. Doolittle as to the 

 desirability of having a writer's "full 

 post office address," and the objection 

 that it "will bring a host of questions to 

 the writers, many of the questioners not 

 even enclosing a stamp for reply," has 

 little if any weight; and "that multitudes 

 of our best bee-keepers will not write at 

 all just on this account" I don't believe 

 is true. In t)iy experienee it has been 

 the exception that a stamp has not been 

 enclosed when the desired information 

 is of benefit to the questioner; and if such 

 a one omits the stamp I usually suggest 

 in my reply that a "stamp for reply" was 

 not enclosed and that always brings the 

 stamp. 



We are not all in this world to ^^^/ good 

 but to do good as we have opportunity, 

 and for any one to say that a "multitude 

 of our best bee-keepers" are so "tied up 

 in themselves " is a slander on the grand 

 men of our fraternity. 



The first time I saw that one of Bro. 

 Doolittle's articles came from Onondago 

 Co., I wondered if he had changed his 

 place of residence, and left his "old 

 stamping ground" at Borodino; and when 

 I saw that our dear Prof. Cook had 

 changed from Claremont Calif, to Los 

 Angeles Co., Calif., I unearthed a postal 

 guide, and to my extreme satisfaction, 

 found that, like Bro. Doolittle, he was 

 holding forth frotn the same "home-nest" 

 as before, and I sincerely hope that np 

 more of our T)ee journals will cease to 

 give their readers the post office addresses 

 of contributors. 



Sta. B. Tolj^do, Ohio, May 11, 1S99. 



