THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW, 



241 



and it does not come np to honey. Do the 

 cheese-markers have no attention at the ex- 

 perimental station? 



Add together potatoes, buckwheat and 

 cheese, and you must incease the combined 

 value by half a million dollars to make it 

 equal the honey. In view of the outlay made, 

 and very properly made, for experiments 

 relating to the three articles mentioned, it 

 can hardly be said the products of bee-keep- 

 ing are too insignificant to warrant an out- 

 lay for experiments. 



If it be objected that the products men- 

 tioned — potatoes, etc. — are the actual pro- 

 ducts of a year, while the amount of honey 

 mentioned is only a possible product, please 

 remember that experiments are made on 

 the basis of possibilities, with the view of 

 something different from what has been. 



Or, it may be said, "If possibilities, are 

 to be figured on, then estimate potatoes not 

 by the actual but the possible, and the crop 

 will assume one hundred times its present 

 importance, for 100 times the number of 

 bushels might be raised." Please go back 

 to our supposition, and that was that all the 

 vocations were nicely adjusted so as to secure 

 the greatest good to the greatest number, 

 and in that case there will be just the right 

 number of potatoes raised, for the general 

 good. If you increase the number of pota- 

 toes raised, it must be at the expense of 

 some other crop, the additional potatoes 

 raised will take the ground otherwise occu- 

 pied with corn or something else. So there 

 will only be a change of products, and as we 

 have supposed a perfect adjustment, any dis- 

 arrangement of this adjustment will make 

 a decrease instead of an increase of wealth. 

 But in the case of the honey, it will be quite 

 different. Any increase in the honey crop will 

 not mean a decrease in any other crop, but 

 as before said, will be a clean-cut addition 

 to tl\e total resources. Indeed, it will be 

 more than the addition of the honey crop, 

 for according to good authorities, honey is 

 only a by-product of the bee, its chief use 

 being the fertilization of flowers. The value 

 of the beeswax produced is also an item 

 worth considering. 



It seems, then, pretty clear that the neg- 

 lect of the bee-keeping interests does not 

 arise from the fact that the products are too 

 insignificant to warrant any outlay for ex- 

 periments. 



The second ground on which the neglect 

 might seem to be justified, is the fact, if it 

 be a fact, that everything pertaining to bee- 

 keeping is already so fully understood that 

 there is no room for experiment. The very 

 suggestion of such a thing will bring a smile 

 to the lips of any practical bee-keeper. If 

 there is any set of men that are exception- 

 ally noted to be always on the strain in the 

 investigation of some unsettled point, lying 

 awake nights over some unfinished problem, 

 losing every year considerable parts of the 

 crop in seeking some better way, surely they 

 may be found among bee-keepers. It is idle 

 to pursue further such a thought. 



What, then, is the reason that so far near- 

 ly all that has been done has been a matter 

 entirely of private enterprise? Is it not be- 



cause those who have in charge such mat- 

 ters have not been fully awake to the impor- 

 tance to the public interest of bee-keeping, 

 and that bee-keepers have been too modest 

 to assert their claims? 



In view, then, of the importance of an in- 

 dustry that adds to the general wealth in a 

 double way without detracting from any- 

 thing else, and in view of the fact that bee- 

 keepers are largely engaged everywhere in 

 experiments that could be more economi- 

 cally and more satisfactorily carried out at 

 a place fully equipped for the purpose, there 

 seems only one answer to the question 

 whether bee-keepers need an experiment 

 station. 



As to the details of carrying out anything 

 of the kind, I will make no suggestion ex- 

 cept the single one, that whoever is at the 

 head of such an experimental station should 

 be a bee-keeper through and through — one 

 in touch with the mass of bee-keepers, know- 

 ing their needs and in entire sympathy at all 

 points with the work. To such a one they 

 would look hopefully for light, and cheer- 

 fully render all the aid in their power." 



Marengo, 111. 



A Condensed View of Current 

 Bee Writings. 



E. E. HASTY. 



Like Paul " I magnify my office." The 

 true critic's office is a very high and rare 

 one. It may seem "cheeky" in me to try 

 and fill it ; but I'm in for it now, and I re- 

 flect that failure in trying is not so bad as 

 failure for lack of trying. It is easy to dis- 

 tribute taffy to every one you touch, and 

 shut eyes to all faults ; but what's the use of 

 that kind of criticism ? It interests for a 

 little while, and theu gradually becomes dis- 

 gusting to every one — the recipient of taffy 

 included. The approbation of a critic who 

 will praise by the half column the emptiest 

 scribbler who ever drove a quill just as freely 

 as he would praise Homer — who can receive 

 his praise without making up a wry face on 

 the sly ? On the other hand there is the old- 

 bloody-Tom sort of criticism, which banks 

 entirely on the popular fondness for seeing 

 somebody minced up. Some critics, as well 

 as some readers seem to enjoy it ; but where 

 do morals come in in such wicked sport ? 

 The true critic's bearing toward those whom 

 he reviews is like that of a noble teacher 

 toward a scholar — no malignity at all — a pre- 

 ference for praise, yet perfect fearlessness 

 of dispraise, even toward the strongest and 

 most irascible. One editor thanks a critic 



