118 



THF BEE-KEEPERS' REVijijW. 



not also have to be explained " many times, " 

 namely just as often as would stem neces- 

 sary to make the distinction clear to those 

 that have not " caught on " yet ? I should 

 think that any intelligent bee-keeper ( and 

 do not our books and i)apers at any occasion 

 assure us what a highly intelligent set we all 

 are ? ) when once told will keep and forever 

 know the meaning of this term. Besides, 

 where there is an " after ," there is a " be- 

 fore " and in my opinion the use of the one 

 word necessitates and includes the use of 

 the other. 



Apropos " foot-nctes. " How is it that 

 some of you cannot resist the temptation of 

 now and then "going for" poor Ernest be- 

 cause he thinks foot-notes to be a good 

 thing? Sosajs Mr. R. L. Taylor ( wliose 

 merits as an apiarist and experimenter I, of 

 course, unhesitatingly acknowledge ) in 

 your February Review, that foot-notes •' are 

 written, almost of necessity, on the spur of 

 the moment, without investigation and 

 without much thought" and that "those 

 same matters, if treated more deliberately 

 in a column by themselves, would be less 

 liable to weakness. " I cannot consent to 

 this, but reply : "It depends. " If the editor 

 is the right kind of an editor, he will, even 

 "on the spur of the moment, "write with 

 investigation and iciVi thought, and if he is 

 not the right kind of an editor he will, even 

 if treating those same matters in a column 

 by themselves, show no deliberation and no 

 mental strength. Suppose ( to choose an 

 example ) Mr. Doolittle were editing a bee- 

 paper and had a " liking " for foot-notes, 

 do you think his sayings could ever be call- 

 ed uninvestigatiug, thoughtless, weak ? 

 Never, for he is too well posted /of that and 

 too present-minded at that. So, you see, it 

 is not the foot no'.es which can be condemm- 

 cd. Mr. Taylor is angry with Ernest be- 

 cause the latter, several times, had opposed 

 Mr. Taylor, but the fact that lii^rnest had op- 

 posed liim in foot-notes has nothing (o do 

 with the matter and if Ernest deserved a 

 whipping, the foot note, at any rate, did not 

 deserve it. 



You have, no doubt, followed with much 

 interest that discussion on " small or large 

 hives" which has been going on in our bee- 

 papers, especially Gleanings, of late. Do 

 you not also think that, when the controver- 

 sy stands between the eight-and ten-frame- 

 hives, those ( at all events tiie great majority 

 of those ) who favor the eight-frame-hive, 



went too far ? I will nbt deny that for 

 certain localities the use of eight frames 

 may be better, and yet I feel like saying : 

 " Never use an eight-frame-hive. " Why ? 

 First : even localities — their resources I 

 mean — are changing and for any locality the 

 time may come when a ten- frame-hive will 

 be preferable. Second : likewise people — 

 their minds I mean— are changing and not 

 many of us are, as it were, so consolidated 

 and unalterable as to-be positively sure that 

 we might never give the ten-frame-hive 

 the preference. Third : the beginner at any 

 rate is very likely to change his first choice. 

 Have not even our greatest bee- authorities, 

 as a rule, abandoned the hives they first 

 used ? And can any one, under such circum- 

 stances, honestly recommend the eight- 

 frame-hive to a beginner ? Fourth : suppose 

 the eight-framer wants to sell his apiary, 

 but the intending purchaser is a ten-framer, 

 would this not be quite a dilemma ? Fifth : 

 likewise, if the eigh4,-framer should decide 

 tn practice migratory bee-keeping and the 

 region or regions where he has to travel 

 were better adapted to the ten-frame-hipe ; 

 or, if he leaves the place where he lived at 

 all, but wishes to take his apiary along and 

 the new home is better suited to the ten- 

 frame-hiye. In all these cases, and perhaps 

 for some more reasons, the ten-frame-hive 

 is preferable, for if you have a ten-frame- 

 hive you have in it, with the use of a folloiv- 

 f?', also an eight-frame-hive, but if you have 

 an eight-frame-hive, you are entirely left 

 out in the cold and must feel like wearing a 

 hat which is too small for your head, you 

 have either to wear it to your utmost disgust 

 and discomfort or— to throw it away and 

 buy another larger one. Therefore, even if 

 I were in favor of using eight frames, I 

 should anyhow never use the eight-frame- 

 hive. 



Your practice to put in the Review at the 

 head of each " article " the picture of its 

 writer, is quite laudable, but some of these 

 pictures are less laudable, I tell you, and 

 not in harmony with the otherwise fine 

 typographical make-up of your monthly. 

 Mr. Thompson's picture, for instance, 

 makes him look as though he had just 

 emerged from a coal-mine. Were I he, I 

 should have gone for you long ago and 

 applied to you a whipping— well, say, like 

 the one applied to poor Ernest by " Exper- 

 imental " Taylor. 

 St. Peteksbubg, Fla. Mar. 5, 189G. 



