562 
LAWS RELATING TO BEES 
That bees do not injure fruit or fruit 
trees has also been established in a court of 
justice to the satisfaction of a jury. It 
was in the case of Utter vs. Utter, tried at 
Goshen, N. Y., in 1901. As the case was 
not appealed from the trial court, the de¬ 
cision is not to be found in the reported 
cases. Iu the Utter case, like the Arka- 
delphia case, the bees were merely inciden¬ 
tal. The facts were, that there had been 
years of previous trouble between the par¬ 
ties, and the suit over the supposed or 
alleged injury caused by the bees was but 
the culmination of the long-continued quar¬ 
rels. 
It was claimed by the plaintiff that the 
bees of defendant ate and destroyed plain¬ 
tiff’s peaches, and the trial was to ascertain 
if such were the case. 
At the trial there appeared as witnesses 
for the defense A. I. Root and E. R. Root 
of Medina, Ohio; Frank Benton of Wash¬ 
ington, D. C., and several others promi¬ 
nent in the world of apiculture. Frank 
Benton, at that time Assistant Entomolo¬ 
gist of the Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, D. C., by reason of his stand¬ 
ing as a scientist and his general knowl¬ 
edge of matters pertaining to apiculture, 
was a very important witness. 
The testimony of Mr. Benton established 
the following facts: 
That the honeybee has a soft, pliable 
tongue, and could not puncture sound 
fruit; that the inner tongue of the bee is 
spoon-shaped and covered with hairs; that 
the tongue of the bee cannot become rigid; 
that the bee laps up the nectar; and that 
the feelers of the bee are soft and cannot 
pierce anything, being pnly organs of 
touch and smell. Mr. Benton’s further 
testimony was to the effect that birds and 
other insects do the puncturing, and that 
then the bees may suck the wasting juices. 
The jury found the bees not guilty of 
injuring the fruit and returned a verdict 
for the defendant, J. W. Utter. 
FRUIT DRYING. 
Where fruit is being dried is another 
matter, and there is no doubt but that 
damage is done by bees to drying fruit if 
they are allowed to work upon it. The 
sugar that bees carry away from the dry¬ 
ing fruit is deducting just that amount of 
weight from the fruit, besides injuring its 
appearance. Bees can also make themselves 
a nuisance to those at work where fruit is 
being dried. In one instance known to the 
writer a beekeeper in California by reason 
of there having been a poor season in the 
mountains brought his bees to the small 
town where he lived. The principal crop 
in and about this town was fruit, and when 
the apricot drying season came on the 
bees became so thick on the newly cut 
fruit that a large force of girls who were 
cutting the fruit had to be laid off and 
operations stopped for the day. That 
night the beekeeper removed his bees some 
three miles away, and the next day made a 
satisfactory settlement with the fruit- 
dryer, and so the trouble ended. 
LAWS RELATING TO FOUL BROOD. 
—In controlling bee diseases in a commu¬ 
nity, past experience has shown that it is 
necessary that every beekeeper do his part; 
otherwise the work done by individuals is 
largely nullified by the carelessness or neg¬ 
lect of a few. Where all the beekeepers 
are progressive, a simple plan of co-opera¬ 
tion would be enough; but, unfortunately, 
there are in almost all communities some 
beekeepers who are either ignorant, care¬ 
less, or willfully negligent. If any of these 
will not voluntarily care for their bees 
there must be some legal means of com¬ 
pelling them to abate a public nuisance 
when disease appears among their colonies. 
Laws providing for inspection of apia¬ 
ries with the object of controlling diseases 
are, therefore, drafted primarily for the 
beekeeper who does not voluntarily treat 
diseased colonies. The progressive bee¬ 
keeper needs so such law to compel him to 
do his duty. The inspector of apiaries, 
however, in actual practice, is much more 
than a police officer; in fact, his police 
duties are but a small part of his work. 
Hpwever the law may be worded, the good 
which an inspector does is due in the 
greater part to his work as an educator. 
It is the duty of the inspector, specified in 
the law in most cases, to instruct the bee¬ 
keepers how to know disease and how and 
when to treat. 
Hawaii and the following States now 
have laws of some kind providing for in¬ 
spection : Arizona, California, Colorado, 
