THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW, 



111 



for the reader a real, helpful, concentrated 

 food. If a writer has humor or style, all 

 right, if made subservient to the main ob- 

 ject, but all wrong if an attempt gets started 

 to palm off humor or tine writing as a sub- 

 stitute for fact and experience. 



The interest which topic concentration 

 aroused rather overgrew the first part of the 

 plan for a while, insomuch that our editor is 

 used to having his ear warmed with the ques- 

 tion, " Why don't the Review review ?" 

 but he has not abandoned any part of his 

 theory, and is getting around to" a fuller re- 

 alization of it. Not to praise Mr. Hutchin- 

 son a little would be mere affectation of 

 judicial loftiness. It is but just to give him 

 his due — or a part of it. In a time when 

 everything favored a decline and loss of in- 

 terest in bee literature, as well as in every- 

 thing else pertaining to bees, he has pushed 

 up his own work, and compelled nearly 

 eveiybody else to push up theirs. Our bee 

 papers, some of them (I wish I could say all 

 of them) are edited by men quick to notice 

 and " scratch around " if some one else in 

 the class makes movements and improve- 

 ments for which they have no equivalent. 

 Mr. Hutchinson has long been the one chief 

 provocative to " scratching around " all 

 along the line. The good he has done inside 

 his own paper is but a fraction of what he 

 has done apicultural journalism as a whole. 

 Unless this can be denied, surely our rank 

 and file ought to remember it in their sub- 

 scriptions. Take the Review, and your other 

 favorite paper will doubtless be kept wide 

 awake. Had the Review died three years 

 ago the whole field would have been dull and 

 spiritless compared with what it is now. 

 Take the Review even if it has not the cash 

 just yet to spend on splendid illustrations — 

 it will have some day if merit has its proper 

 reward — and you are not looking out for the 

 interests of our craft if you let it be pinched 

 down by lack of support. You know in 

 ancient times they had priests to conduct the 

 worship, and prophets to make the priests 

 'tend to their business. W. Z. is a prophet. 



What is the Review's most conspicuous 

 fault ? Not sure but it is that the editor 

 writes so little for it himself — pays good 

 cash to somebody else to fill columns; when 

 the reader would like them better if filled 

 by the editor. Hutchinson's calm, clear, 

 pellucid style, with little attempt at orna- 

 mentation, is like good bread ; one can eat a 

 good deal of it every day without getting 



tired of it — as compared with that other fel- 

 low that is ginger snaps, and that other one 

 that is "floating island" inflated with big 

 words, and figures of speech, and classical 

 allusions. 



How about the matter of free advertising 

 in the reading columns ? Most first-class 

 journals shut down on it completely, refuse 

 to tolerate anything that even smells of it, 

 no matter if the public interest does occa- 

 sionally suffer, and good things die unborn 

 for want of notice. This is far the easiest 

 way to do it. Some line must be drawn, 

 else half the paper would be filled perpet- 

 ually with advertising that brings no reve- 

 nue. Among bee journals, however. Glean- 

 ings set the pace many years ago that really 

 valuable things unknown to the public, and 

 liable to stay so, were to be brought forward 

 and set before the people. Why should a 

 really valuable invention be used in only one 

 apiary, or a few apiaries, because the inven- 

 tor don't believe it would pay expenses to 

 make and advertise it for sale ? This is a 

 right sentiment, but difficult to carry out 

 properly : and this critic thinks the Review, 

 just at present, has sailed across the danger 

 line. What would it do if each advertiser 

 should proceed now to send in an able arti- 

 cle describing his wares ? 



Now for the seriatim of the February 

 number. If comrade R. L. Taylor is as good 

 as he looks we may safely trust in him. He 

 gives the junior class this time a compre- 

 hensive talking to. He does not all the time 

 keep clear of disputed points, but holds well 

 away from counsels that are risky and dan- 

 gerous. The climax items are very good — 



Don't marry an unproved liive. my dear; 

 Don't bungle things when you "carpenteer." 



Wish I could obey that last command my- 

 self. 



Next comes " Rambler," — Ah, he's been 

 trading off his umbrella for a three-legged 

 hoss ; and now if he gets after me on the 

 hop-aty-hop I may have to drop that sugar- 

 honey, and " pike it " down the road at a 

 very undignified rate of speed. The news is 

 quite newsy which he gives us about Mexi- 

 can California — the honey flow getting bet- 

 ter and better the further one goes down 

 into it. But 'pears to me I remember that 

 drouth gets more and more the rule as one 

 goes south. And so young men in Califor- 

 nia make their ^7s^ capital at bees, and then 

 step out into some other business. Ho, ho ! 

 Few vocations offer so good a ladder for en- 



