1 
THE AUSTRALIAN BEEKEEPERS’ JOURNAL. 
vet fully accomplished. A new start must be 
made in each separate apartment, or cross-row. 
“ Bait 1 ' combs could not well be used as an 
enticement, for it will not answer to place a 
section filled with comb by the side of one with 
only a starter, without a separator, which could 
not be used in this case ; and if we have comb 
in all the sections of one cross-row it does not 
serve as an enticement for any other row, as 
there is no direct communications between the 
rows. 
In 1883 I conceived the idea of opening up 
communication between these cross-rows, by 
making entrances between the sections at the 
sides, like those at the top and bottom. I 
accordingly went back to the 1-lb. section with 
open sides, and contrived a case especially 
adapted to their use which has since developed 
into what I now call the “adjustable” case. 
The chief object of this change was to combine 
the advantages of large frames with those of 
small sections. 
One important advantage L, that after work 
is once started anywhere in the case, the bees 
gradually work through in the next row, and on 
to the ends of the case in the direction the 
combs run, which is the natural way for bees to 
work : whereas with the closed sides, work must 
be started in four places, and then progress 
“ across the grain.” 
Another advantage claimed is that of a more 
perfect ventilation, facilitating the ripening 
process. Practice proves that the objects sought 
are realized. The main object is the same as 
that sought by the many expensive and com- 
plicated contrivances under the heads of “ re- 
versible frames,” “contraction dummies,” “in- 
vertible hives,” and “divisible brood-chambers” 
with the qneen-excluders, which these things 
necessitate. In brief, it is to get honey stored 
in sections rather than in brood-combs. With 
full 10-frame L. brood -chambers, without con- 
traction, inversion, or queen-exclusion, but with 
open-side sections above, I have found through- 
out a good honey-flow, the queens holding their 
position up close to the top-bar, leaving always 
plenty of empty cells below and around the 
brood. From such colonies I have had good 
yields of comb honey with but few swarms, and 
at the close of the season I have found scarcely 
honey enough in all the ten brood combs to 
winter the colonies. 
I do not claim that the use of open-side 
sections will give us all the advantages claimed 
for contraction and inversion ; but with them 
there is not the necessity for the unnatural 
extremes of compulsion, to which many are now 
resorting. 
The unfavorable reports from open-side sec- 
tions are evidently the result of improper con- 
struction, poor workmanship, or the want of a 
suitable case to hold them. They should be 
pressed close together, especially from the ends 
of the case ; and for easy manipulation the case 
should be capable of enlargement. 
OLIVER FOSTER. 
Mt. Vernon, Iowa, Mar. 5, 1888. 
THE REV. L. L. LANGSTROTH. 
From “ British Bee Journal," May 2bth, 1888 
Theke is, perhaps, no man living to whom 
bee-keepers of the present day owe more than to 
the Rev. L. L. Langstroth, or, as he is termed 
by our American friends “ Father Langstroth." 
How often in the progress and development of a 
science or industry the pioneers, those who were 
amongst the first, and who worked the hardest, 
very _ soon became forgotten. It is so in bee- 
keeping ; those who have done the most, and by 
their exertions have enabled many in the present 
day to become not only bee-keepers but success- 
ful honey-producers, are forgotten and ignored. 
But this is not all, for those who have benefited 
by others’ brain efforts and experiences are 
frequently those who do their best to erush 
them. Do we not find repeatedly that claims 
are made to inventions and improvements with- 
out regard to what has been done before ? 
Names of inventors, discoverers, and benefactors 
are frequently forgotten in the eagerness to 
benefit at their expense. We might mention 
numbers of instances at the present day, where 
inventions are used with but slight alteration, 
and the users deriving a pecuniary benefit, 
whilst the originators, to whom the invention 
cost a large expenditure of brain power, many 
sleepless nights, and perhaps a large sum of 
money into the bargain, are completely ignored, 
We have a most striking instance of this in the 
case of the Rev. L. L. Langstroth. We do not 
wish to enter into the question of whether 
Langstroth, Munn, or anyone else, was the first 
to invent the frame, but what we wish to point 
out is that Langstroth was the first to make the 
moveable comb hive a practical success, and by 
his work, The Hive and Honey Bee., which is 
still the standard on the subject, he opened up to 
the world the improved methods of bee-cultnre, 
which have led to the enormous success wit- 
nessed at the present time. Does every bee- 
keeper realise that in using a moveable comb 
hive he is morally indebted to Mr. Langstroth 
for the benefit he i s deriving from it ? And if 
he does, is lie prepared to make some acknow- 
ledgement aud return for this obligation ? 
For many years Mr. Langstroth, who is now 
77 years of age, has suffered, and only from time 
to time, and at long intervals, has he been able 
to take up with his favorite pursuit. We 
regretted that when we visited America last 
summer he was not in a condition to see us, and 
nothing would have gixen us greater pleasure 
than to have grasped this veteran’s hand and 
looked into his benevolent face. Ever devoted 
to the science he loves so well, according to a 
friendly letter we received from him a few days 
ago, he was even then, during a period of con- 
valescence, at the apiary of Mr. Heddon study- 
ing the capabilitiss of the Heddon system. His 
head troubles have prevented him from earning 
his living, and it is because this master of bee- 
keepers has been robbed of his means of liveli- 
hood by some of those who have reaped the 
