THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



113 



as heretofore. Certaiu by-laws were also 

 adjusted to the new Act, and it was decided 

 tp hold the auuual meetin<,'s in Dec. instead 

 of Jan. 



There was, perhap?, less real "bee-talk, " 

 or apiarian exposition and discussion prop- 

 er, at tliis convention than for some years 

 past, if not since the society was organized. 

 Things in this regard have been growing 

 worse for some three or four years back. 

 Much lime has been occupied in dicussnm 

 of matters whicli, though relevant to the 

 Association and its work, are not strictly 

 apicultural, and not of that useful and 

 practical character desired by the members 

 iu general. This, of course, is to be de()re- 

 cated, and gives rise to much dissatisfaction 

 on the part of divers members — the younger 

 bee-keepers — who come there to learn a 

 great deal, and fully expect their thirst for 

 apiarian knowledge to be gratified, and 

 when it is not gratified to the full they are 

 dissatisfied and disa[)poiuted. It is just 

 possible that members are a little unreason- 

 able ia this regard. They ought to remem- 

 ber that (he Ontario Society, being the 

 central organiz\tion has other functions 

 thau merely teaching and expounding ele- 

 mentary or even expert bee-culture. That 

 is the functiou and province more particu- 

 larly of the local societies, the journals and 

 the text books. Aad as the Central 

 Sicietv only meets once a year, and is au 

 iucorporated and oflicial body it has neces- 

 sarily a good deal of routine and official 

 work to get through at its annual meeting, 

 and has to consider various questions 

 cogna'e to, though not directly couueoted 

 with, bee keeping. For some years past 

 considerable time has been taken up at the 

 annual meetings with matters in connection 

 with apiarian legislation. 



8lill there has been time wasted and 

 worse than wasted at the meetings. There 

 have been personal differences and un- 

 pleasantness. So far as I am able to see, 

 these have been traceable to t^o or three 

 causes. The flrsti*, the "Pure fioney Bill" 

 — a movement begun three or four years 

 ago to secure certain legislation from 

 the Dominion Goverment ; second, intoler- 

 ance on the part of certain promoters of 

 the bill who could not bear honest opposition; 

 third, the nnfair course taken in the matter 

 by the C. B. .J. : and fourth the inordinate 

 ambition for office and place of the editor 

 of that journal. These appear to be the 



causes of the whole trouble. Mr. K. Mc- 

 Kuight of Owen Sound has taken a decided 

 stand against the " Pure Honey Bill " from 

 the beginning, on the grounds that, in the 

 first place, it was unnecessary, as the pres- 

 ent " Adulteration of Food .\ct " was suffici- 

 ent ; in the second place it was a misuse and 

 waste of the ({jverment grant to expend it 

 in prosecuting the bill, and third that the 

 bill as presented, should it become law, 

 would legalize the s ile of what has been 

 called " bug jaice, " to wit, " honey dew. " 

 Let it be remembered that Mr. McKniglit 

 never carried his opposition to the bill out- 

 side the meetings, but confined his opposi- 

 tion to the expression of his views on the 

 subject in open meeting. As Mr. McKnight 

 was one of the organizers of the society and 

 has been a promiueut and useful worker 

 and official iu the society from its very in- 

 ception, he surely had the right to take the 

 stand he did without incurring abuse, 

 misrepresentation and persecution from 

 any other member or members, much less 

 from one who had done comparatively 

 little or nothing in the interests of the 

 society. Such, however, was the case. 

 These gentlemen could not apparently stand 

 honest opposition. Mr. Holterman in the 

 Goold, Sha[)ley «fc Mair Go's. Journal, and 

 Mr. Pettit in his reports as Chairman of the 

 Committee appointed to prosecute the bill, 

 attacked Mr. McKnight in the manner above 

 intimated, not only misrepresenting him 

 but putting him down before the world as 

 the " enemy " of bee-keeping. Is it, then, 

 to be wondered at that Mr. McKuight has 

 availed himself of his right and his only 

 opportunity to defend and vindicate him- 

 self at the annual meetings agaiust un- 

 provoked attack and untruthful aspersions ? 

 If there has been unpleasantness — if there 

 has been time wasted iu recrimination and 

 personal wrangles — who is to blame ? Who 

 is primarily responsible for all ? No reason- 

 able or honorable man could take exception 

 to Mr. McK'iight's course in reference to 

 that " Pare Honey Bill, " much less make it 

 the pretext for persecution. The onslauglit 

 through the Journal and the reports ( for 

 publication ) were not enough, but the man 

 who dared to express his honest and disin- 

 terested O[)po3ition to the Pure Honey 

 Bill, must also be turned off the Board where 

 he has held a faithful position from the 

 beginning, and which was more honored by 

 his seat than he was honored by occupying 



