194: 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



come in. As we read view after view — sharp, 

 clear-cut, well considered — we become act- 

 ually buoyant. The next Review will be 

 splendid ! Then we begin to have trouble 

 from lack of space. Something m ust be left 

 out, and what shall it be ? Some of the ar- 

 ticles already in type may not be so good as 

 others that have come in later. The latter 

 are " set up," and the former " thrown in." 



crept into the "make up," when we have 

 worked in this manner for a month upon the 

 Review, we almost have its contents by 

 heart. Its fresh, clean pages are more than 

 "twice told tales" to us. We have often 

 wished that we might see a copy of the Re- 

 view that we didn't make, but made as we 

 would have made it. We would like to see 

 the Review exactly as others see it. This, of 



THE HOME OF THE KE\iEv\. 



And so the work goes on ; and. at the last 

 moment, there sometimes comes in so much 

 good matter that must go in, to do the sub- 

 ject justice, that we are compelled to add 

 extra pages. — We read all the bee-journals 

 and the new bee-books, and give our readers 

 the cream. This work is not done in the 

 usual, stereotyped, conventional, platitudinal 

 manner, but when a valuable idea is found 

 it is seized upon and made the subject of a 

 short, crisp, terse editoral. In short, the 

 character of the Review is most clearly indi- 

 cated by its name — it could be no other than 

 "Review." — When we have prepared the 

 copy, written the editorials, put the matter 

 in type, read and re-read the proof, corrected 

 the errors, "made up" the " forms," then 

 taken and read another proof to be sure 

 that no errors have been overlooked or have 



course, can never be. We must be content 

 with the expressed opinions of others. Of 

 the hundreds of "testimonials" received, 

 none touched our pride more than the fol- 

 lowing from a well-known bee-keeper in 

 the East— well, it was P. H. Elwood. He 

 said: "By no means do I agree with all I 

 find in the Review, but I always open it ex- 

 pecting to find it crotrded with ideas, and it 

 has never disappointed me." — In writing to 

 a friend, when the Review was only a few 

 months old, we mentioned that it had 400 

 subscribers. In reply he said: "Only 400! 

 And yet you say it hopefully. Why, it ought 

 to have 1,(XX) by this time. Bee-keepers are 

 not supporting it as they ought." Now ire 

 have never had any such feelings. In the 

 first place, when the Review came upon the 

 stage, bee-keeping was never more poverty 



