9

5

hts
per

ssociation

eepers
ne

K

os Sa

gal

a)
i)
7m
a)
Vv
a
eet
“8
-
©
© yaad
+2

B

a

BEE-KEEPERS'
LEGAL RIGHTS

eh

National Bee-Keepers’

Association

*

ABUSE OF U. 8S, MAIL

a
SEC. 496 U. S: LAWS AND REGULATIONS

(a.) When not liquid or liquefiable, they must be placed in a bag, box
or removable envelope or wrapping, made of paper, cloth or parchment.

(b.) Such bag, box, envelope or wrapping must again be placed in @
box or tube made of metal or some hard wood, with sliding clasp .or serew
lid.

(c.) In case of articles liable to break, the inside box, bag, envelope,
or wrapping must be surrounded by sawdust, cotton or other elastic sub-
stance. ;

_When in glass bottles or vials, such bottles or vials must be strong
enough to stand the shock of hancling in the mails and enclosed in a metal,
wooden or papiermache block or tube not less than three-sixteenths of an
inch in the thinnest part, strong enough to support the weight of mails
piled in bags and resist rough handling; and there must be provided, be-
tween the bottle and said block or tube, a cushion of cotton, felt or some
other absorbent, sufficient to protect the glass in handling; the block or
tube to be impervious to liquids, including oils, and to ke inclosed by a
tight-fitting lid or cover, so adjusted as to make the block or tube water
tight and to prevent the leakage of the contents in case of breakage of
the glass.

Queen bees and their attendant bees, may be sent in the mails when
properly put up so as not to injure the person of those handling the mail,
nor soil the mail bags or their contents.

Never send comb honey by mail, and see that all other packages con-
form to U. S. Postal Laws. I have received by mail several broken boxes
of comb hoeny for inspection. TI also find poor queen cages and pack-
ages with honey sent by mail. ;

Tested, laying queens are often injured in the mail, especially when
in suspended mail bag caught by fast trains from an arm at side of track.

TO THE CITY BEE
KEEPER

~~

There are many keeping bees in the suburbs of cities, whose bees are
an annoyance to neighbors.

1. Spotting Clothes.

This is generally worst the day bees are set out on summer stands.
Bees go cnly short distances at that date. It is best not to set the bees
out on wash days but the day following; by next week the trouble wil! be
over. If they must be set out and if it is wash day, go to the neighbor
who is washing, explain the situation and offer a present of some honey
or money if they will delay washing one day.

2. At Watering Places.

Always provide abundance of water in several places for bees. Shal-
low wooden dishes with sloping sides, with a slatted board float, is a good
form of watering dish. Somewhere have some salt, also airslacked lime
where bees can go to. There is something about it bees like, and it will
save trouble to supply the bees’ demand. If vour bees bother a neighbor’s
pump, go and put a piece of chees cloth over the spout:-and fence the bees
out as well as furnishing a strainer for the water. Stock tanks are places
of annoyance. Just above the water line on inside of the tank fasten a
three-inch strip; it will not bother the stock, and will keep the bees from
going there. Also see to it that overflow is so arranged as to not make
a mud hole near the tank.

3. In the Neighbors’ Garden, or Field.

If your neighbor or his horse are stung by your bees in his garden or
field, I find it a good plan to donate some honey, at same time ask him
to do Such work on cool days or early mornings. If he is unable to keep
the ground clean, then some early morning surprise him by taking your
own horse and cultivate for him up to breakfast. Generally one such act
will establish such good feelings no farther trouble will arise. I have
proven it sc.

4. At Grocery Stores and Residences in Fall.

After the honey season often, bees are a great annoyance at above
places especially in empty sugar and syrup barrels, and candy shops. Go
to those places and ask to place the packages where bees can not get to
them. Go to sugar cane mills and keep the premises cleaned up, and to
neighbors’ kitchens where bees come in and bother while canning fruit,
and ask them to keep the door and windows screened while at such work.
Bees do not go where no sweets abound.

5. In the Highway and Public Places.

If people or teams are stung in such public places by your bees, it is
your duty to so locate the bees, or change the surroundings that they do

4 DEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

not disturb the public. If damage to person, stock, or property is done, —
by the bees, the owner is liable for damages. And if it continues, may
become a nuisance. High board fences or high hedges are a great help.
Even with all possible precaution if bees are near the street, the bees at
times will bother. Keep out of trouble if possible. Don’t get the idea
that the National Association can win every case. We must keep within
the law if you want protection. Avoid conflicts, compromise, and live up
to the Golden Rule.
N. EK. FRANCE,

General Manager of National Association.

WHAT THE COURTS SAY IN RELATION TO PROPERTY IN BEES.
NaS ali
New York Common Law Reports—Wendell, Vol. 12-16 Lawyers’ Ed., P. 548
Kiltz vs. Goff.
PROPERTY IN BEES—WHEN RECLAIMED—TRESPASS.

The owner of bees, which have been reclaimed, may bring an action of
trespass against a person, who cuts down a tree into which the bees haye
entered on the soil of another, destroys the bees and takes the honey.

Where bees take up their abode in a tree, they belong to the owner of
the soil, if they are unreclaimed; but if they have been reclaimed, and
their owner is able to identify his property, they do not belong to the
owner of the soil, but to him who had the former possession, although he
cannot enter upon the lands of the other to retake them without subjecting
himself to an action of trespass. :

Citations—2 Bl. Com., 393, 418; 2 Kent, Com., 394; 6 Johns, 5; 14
Johns, 406; 7 Johns; 16: 1 Cow. 243:

Mr. §. Chapman for Plaintiff in Error.
Mr. J. A. Seeber, for the Defendant in Error.

By the Court, Nelson S. Animals ferae naturae, when reclaimed by the
art and power of man, are the subject of a qualified property if they return
to their natural liberty and wildness, without the animus revertend, it
ceases. During the existence of the qualified property, it is under the pro-
tection of the law the same as any other property, and every invasion of it
is redressed in the same manner. Bees are ferae naturae, but when
hived and reclaimed, a person may have a qualified property in them by
the law of nature, as well as the civil law. Occupation—that is, hiving or
enclosing them—gives property in them. They are now a common species
of property, and an article of trade, and the wildness of their nature by
experience and practice has become essentially subjected to the art and
power of man. An unreclaimed swarm, like all other wild animals, be.
longs to the first occupant—in other words, to the person who first hives
them; but if a swarm fly from the hive of another, his qualified property
continues so long as he can keep them in sight, and possess the power to

>

=== NATIONAL==
BEE-KEEPERS ASSOCIATION
Renewal Blank

Dear Sir:—
Your membership in this association expired.

April 16, 1910 _ .if records are correct.

There are NO BACK DUES. Annual duesare $1.00, pay-

able to General Manager, or if any local or State Association

shall unite with National, and said Secretary sends 50c as
dues of any of their members as National membership. The
National Association promotes interests of its members, pro-
tects their legal rights, its information bureau has helped
many members and continues its good works. I[f you have

anything of interest to bee-keeping to sell, or want ‘to buy,

just report same to Manager, N. E. France. Special low
prices secured on some supplies to members.
Every member gets free, an annual report, a badge but-

ton, receipt for duesand several other leaflets during the year.

=~ SoS Se

Renewal to General Manager, N. E, France,
Platteville, Wisconsin

Date es Re Gre MG we as
my annual dues to the National Bee-Keepers Association.
Name
P, EO eR REN ——— ot

ee hae ey

1 @@ 90? ebooe oyrelones -bime-obmesy donoitsll. vpladivy e:

pe aise, bar t. slrow boay: att ati biel Te. a |

ee ae wats “Sade niles a.

.. -ud sehed s aa a ite 18 re i ‘ee etorty

anoy odd goiiub et

022A. -@ABIIIA-

Ape ie eet wae.

ix

os _byilay: o AOl nigger aid gi qitlersd ed
| C (ef f ‘i toa
Joatios ots ebtosat TH: Dae 4. / hal Soe :

“iy 0072 sre cou bd aun AO WOK q: Vive

notgiooeeh, siste to [sool vue li 10 jeysasM Isroa9@)

ofl .qtderoderon IscotieV emersd mann riod) Io em

aud Oh ABH. 10-, se 0} — ss es bicsin att

Weal rodio lerevee baseoub 101

Linn: Pea sae Rr ae ae

. ffipation—4 cat 4
hey ee eee a

Oe eayen

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 4)

pursue them. Under these circumstances no one else is entitled to take
them. 2 Bl. Com. 303; 2 Kent. Com. 394.

If a domestic or tame animal of one person should stray to the en-
closure of another, the owner could not follow and retake it, without being
liable for a trespass. The absolute right of property, notwithstanding,
would still continue in him. So in respect to the qualified property in the
bees. If it continued in the owner after they hived themselves, and abode
in the hollow tree, as this qualified is under the same protection of law
as if absolute the like remedy existed in the case of an invasion of it. If
the property in the swarm conitues while in sight of the owner—in other
words, while he can distinguish and identify it in the air—that it equally
belongs to him if it settles upon a@ branch or in the trunk of a tree, and
remains there under his observation and charge.

THE BEE IN LAW—PROPERTY RIGHT IN BEES.

—

GLEANINGS.
By R. D. Fisher.

“If we have caught a wild beast or bird or fish or bee, the moment this
animal has been caught it becomes ours, and it is regarded as ours as it
is under the restraint of our safe keeping; but when it has escaped from
our keeping, and regained its natural liberty, it becomes the property of
the first taker, because it ceases to be ours; and such an animal is con-
sidered to regain its natural liberty when either it has escaped out of our
sight, or though still in our sight, the pursuit is difficult.”

Blackstone, the great law-giver, says: “Bees also are ferae naturae
(wild by nature); but when hived and reclaimed, a man may have a quali-
fied property in them by the law of nature as well as by the civil law.”
And words with the civil law, speaks Bracton: “Occupation, that is, hiv-
ing or including them gives the property in bees; for, though a swarm
alights upon my tree, I have no more property in them till I have hived
them than I have in the birds which make their nest thereon; and, there-
fore, if another hives them, he shall be their proprietor; but a swarm which
flies from out of my hive is mine so long as I can.keep it in sight and have
power to pursue them; and in these circumstances no one else is entitled
to take them.” But in respect to such animals as are in the habit of
going and returning, as pigeons and bees, which are accustomed to go into
the woods and fields, and come again, we have this traditional rule that, if
they cease to have the intention of returning, they also cease to be ours,
and become the property of the first taker, because they cease to be what
are termed animus revertendi when they have discontinued their habits of
returning. —

Ownership in bees is ratione soli—that is, bearing reference to the soil.
and is said to be the ground of ownership in bees. So in the civil law,
if a swarm of bees had flown from A’s hive they were reputed his so long
as they remained in sight and might easily be pursued; but they do not

~ become private property .until they are oats hived.

6 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

QUALIFIED PROPERTY RIGHT—HOW ACQUIRED; PURSUIT, RE-
- CLAIMING, REPLEVIN.

eg

GLEANINGS.
By R. D. Fisher.

Having in a previous article laid down the general rules that govern
property in wild animals, we shall endeavor to show,how the general na-
ture of this class of property is applicable to bees.

Bees are classed with and regarded as wild animals. Therefore, since
bees are wild animals, and until reclaimed and hived, no property right
can be acquired in them; hived bees are the bona-fide property of the one
who has reclaimed them, notwithstanding a temporary escape. So long
as the owner can identify them they belong to him, and not to the owner
of the soil to which they escape, although he can not enter the land to
retake them without consent or committing a trespass. But even in such
cases it will be seen, during the existence of this qualified right, bees are
under the protection of the law the same as any other property. Every
invasion of this property is redressed in the same manner, and reclaimed
after the same forms of law, as any other property of the same class.

Bees are regarded in law as a common species of property, an article
of trade or barter, and the yildness of their nature by practice and art has
become essentially subjected to the will and power of man.

FLIGHT AND PURSUIT.

In case a Swarm fly from the owner’s hive, his qualified right continues
only so long as he can keep them in sight, and possesses the power to pur-
sue them where he has a right to pursue, or otherwise positively and dis-
tinctly identify them. The difficulties in reclaiming bees after taking
flight are many. The decisions of our courts furnish numerous peculiar
circumstances, and unfold the difficulties in reclaiming bees that have
escaped from the hives or soil of the original owner. In the case of
Goff vs. Kiltz (15 Wend. N. Y., 550), the New York Supreme Court held
that, where a swarm of bees left the hive of the plaintiff, and went into a ~
tree on the land of another, he having followed the bees and marked the
tree in which they entered, while he had no right to enter upon the prop-
erty to recover them without the consent of the owner, yet he could main-
tain an action of trespass and damages against a third party who entered
the land, cut the tree down, killed the bees, and took the honey away.

The New York court, in the case of Goff vs. Kiltz, above said: “They
remain his property notwithstanding a temporary escape; the owner keep-
ing them in sight, and marking the tree into which they entered, they
belong to him and not to the owner of the soil.” )

HOW RECOVERED—REPLEVIN.

Replevin is the universal remedy in the United States when chattels -
have been wrongfully taken or are wrongfully detained from a claimant,
and he seeks to recover them in specie instead of satisfaction in damages.
it is a statutory action, and the statutes are considerably variant. (See
Cooley’s note to Blackstone Com., p. 144).

Trover is the remedy by which, under the same circumstances, to re-

NATIONAL EBHE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION . go all

cover satisfaction in damages, the defendant being allowed to retain the
chattels as of his own property.

—————————

ANIUS REVERTENDI; TRANSPORTATION; LARCENY.
ee

Bees are ferae naturae, i. e., wild by nature, and classed with suck
wild animals as have what is called the animus revertendi, or a usual habit
of returning whence they have escaped. During this temporary absence
they remain the property of the original owner (2 Kent. Com., 348). The
law, aS Blackstone says, “extends this possession further than the mere
manual occupation; for my tame hawk that is pursuing his quarry in my
presence, though he is at liberty to go where he pleases, is nevertheless
my property; for he hath animum revertendi. So are my pigeons, and
‘bees that are flying at a distance from their home, and likewise the deer
that is chased out of my park or forest; all which remain still in my
possession, and I still preserve my qualified property in them. But if they
stray without my knowledge, and do not return in the usual manner, it is
then lawful for any stranger to take them.” (2 Blackstone, Com. 392).

TRANSPORTATION OF BEES; CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE.

Though it may be optional with railway companies whether they will
accept the full responsibility of transporting bees, yet if they do so without
any expres restriction they are liable as common carriers. But they may
agree for a less hire simply to transport bees, furnish cars, etc.; and if
the shipper and owner of the bees agrees to the lower rate, he cannot
hold them as common carriers. For a given reward they proffer to be-
come his carrier; for a less reward they proffer to furnish the necessary
means that the owner of the bees may be his own carrier. (Kimball vs.
Sey) Co. 26° Vii; 247).

BEES THE SUBJECT OF LARCENY.

But in a recent Rhode Island case (Rexroth vs. Coon, 15 R. I. 35), the
plaintiff, without permission, placed a hive of bees upon the land of a third
person. The defendant, also a trespasser, removed the bees and honey
which had collected in the hive. The court found that there was no
cause -of action, holding that neither plaintiff nor defendant had any title
or right to possession to the bees or to the honey.

Bees are likened unto wild animals belonging to no one so long as
they are in their wild state and property in them is acquired by occupancy,
hiving, and reclaiming only, and are not the subject of larceny unless they
are in the owners’ custody as in a hive, bee house, or otherwise confined
and within the control of the possessor or owner.

KEEPING BEES—WHEN AND WHEN NOT A NUISANCE.
Se

1. General Definition—The term “nuisance,” in legal phraseology is
applied to that class of wrongs that arise from the unreasonable, unwar-

8 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

rantable or unlawful use by a person of his own property, real or personal,
or from his own improper or unlawful conduct, working an obstruction of,
or injury to a right of another or of the public, and producing such material
annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort or hurt that the law will presume
a consequent damage.

2. Public and Private Nuisances.—Public or common nuisances affect
the community at large, or some considerable portion of it, such as the
inhabitants of a town or community; and the person therein offending is
liable to eriminal prosecution. A public nuisance does not necessarily .
create a civil cause of action for any person; but it may do so under cer-
tain conditions. A private nuisance affects only one person or a deter-
minate number of persons and is the ground of civil proceedings only.
Generally it affects the control, use, or enjoyment of immovable property;
but this is not a necessary element according to the modern view of the
law. A nuisance, to be a public nuisance must be in a public place or
where the public frequently congregate, or where members of the public
are likely to come within the range of its influence; for if the act or use
of property be in a remote and unfrequented locality, it will not be a public
nuisance. A common nuisance according to English authority, is an un-
lawful act or omission to discharge a. legal duty, which act or omission
endangers the lives, safety, health, property, or comfort of the public, or
by which the public is obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right
common to all the people.

Strictly speaking, a trade or occupation, a business or industry lawful
in itself, and which becomes a nuisance because of its location, or the man-
ner in which it is conducted, or the character of the animals or thing, is
not a nuisance per se, though it may be a prima-facie nuisance,

3. Keeping Bees—When and Where Not a Nuisance—Whether bees
are or are not a nuisance is to be judicially determined in each individual
case and it would seem the foregoing definitions were broad enough to
include them. Only few cases have found their way to the higher courts,
involving this subject; but, with the development of the fruit-growing in-
dustry the bee’s liberty is more than ever questioned, and it is not unlikely
that the future will be conducive to much litigation between the fruit-
grower and the bee-keeper.

Place of Keeping Bees.—One engaged in the business of keeping bees
may not rightfully keep his bees in a place upon his premises so as to
annoy his neighbors. Such an act is a nuisance. One of the earlier
cases on this subject was decided by the New York Supreme Court (Olm-
sted vs. Rich 6 N, Y. Supt., 826), and other courts have been content to
follow it. In this. case the evidence showed that the plaintiff and de-
fendants were neighbors; that the defendants were keeping a large num-
ber of hives of bees in a lot immediately joining the plaintiff’s dwelling-
house, and that at certain seasons they were a source of great annoyance
to him and his family, and also that they could be removed without mate-
rial difficulty to a place on the defendants’ premises where they would not
disturb the neighbors. The action was in the nature of an injunction to
prevent defendants from maintaining their apiary at the place above
named. The court held that the case was a proper one for a permanent
injunction. In such action the issue was not as to defendants’ motives in
keeping bees, but simply whether the condition of things, as then and pre-
viously existing, constituted a nuisance. The court held affirmatively, and
the bees were ordered removed in order to abate the nuisance.

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION )

On the other hand, an ordinance -by a city council which makes the
owning, kéeping, or raising of bees within a city’s limits a nuisance per se
is too broad, and is, therefore, invalid. The most celebrated case of this
‘kind on record is that of Clark vs. City of Arkadelphia, Arkansas, 52 Ark.,
23. The evidence in this case showed that Clark, who had kept bees in
that city for a number of years was not in political harmony with those in
power and the latter sought to punish him and get rid of his presence by
prohibiting the keeping of bees within the corporate limits of the city.
Clark was ordered to remove his bees, but refused to do so, and his arrest
and conviction by the city court under the ordinance followed. He ap-
pealed to the Circuit Court, the latter dismissing the prosecution, and
then the state appealed to the Supreme Court, wherein it is held that,
“Although bees may become a nuisance in a city, an ordinance which makes
the owning, keeping, or raising them within the city limits a nuisance
whether it is in fact so or not, is too broad and is not valid.”

While bees have been kept for centuries in towns and cities it is a
fact, so far as we have been able to discover by a careful search of the
court records that the city of Arkadelphia is the first on record to attempt
to forbid them. “All ordinances, arbitrary in their terms, and unreasonable,
and unnecessarily abridging private rights, are void,’ says Dillon on
Municipal Corporations. City ordinances can not be levied at a mere
private nuisance to one or more persons. The nuisance must be public
and general in its character, and must be an actual nuisance with sufficient
evidence to sustain it. Courts have, therefore, taken knowledge of the
habits of bees, and hold that it would be impossible at the present state
of the bee industry for them to be more than a private nuisance, for which
the person or persons injured or annoyed have their EES as set forth
in the Olmsted vs. Rich case, supra.

The decision of the Arkansas court is valuable anid stimulating prece-
dent is good law, and a menace to those who attempt to interfere with
useful and growing industry pursuit or occupation.

DAMAGES—WHEN AND WHEN NOT A NUISANCE,

Sa

1. Definition—Damages are the indemnity recoverable by a@ person
who has sustained an injury either in his person, property or relative
rights, through the act or default of another.

But no damages are recoverable for a mere inconvenience attending
the existence of a public benefit.

CAPACITY TO TRESPASS,

_ Courts judicially know that bees can not be stabled as other animals
are; that to do so would destroy their value as property. If the owners
of houses, grocers, and fruit-dealers were not careless in leaving the attrac-
tions for them, bees would commit no trespass. They would go to pas-
ture among forest, fields, and amid flowers. But the grocers, fruit-dealers,
and fruit-raisers say they are not required to screen against bees if demos-.
ticated and regarded as property; that the law should protect them from
the ravages of trespassing bees the same as any other trespassing animals.

16 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

This is true only so far as identification can be made positive. The in-
stinct of bees is well understood, but their identification is difficult. The
relation between fruit-growers and bee-keepers is said to be somewhat
strained. The former claim it to be fair to compel the bee-keeper to feed
his bees at home in seasons when they would otherwise prove a nuisance
and damaging trespassers to his neighboring fruit grower. Whether it
would or would not be possible to keep bees at home by feeding them heay-
ily is an open question. But this plan would entail a heavy tax upon the
bee-keeper. Would it be just to make the bee-keeper pay this when, quite
likely, the cracked and rotting fruit which the bee would take from the
neighbor’s orchard has been produced, at least has set, because of the
labors in pollination of these same bees? When bees find a fair supply
of nectar in the flowers within reach of their hive they prefer that to
fruit, and few bees then attack fruit. But it is not at all sure that liberal
feeding will keep all of the bees at home, or nearly all of them, from trying
to get fruit, sugar or juices.

The next suggestion is that of moving away if the cost would be less
than feeding. But can the bee-keeper get away from the fruit-grower?
If the extensive fruit-grower can sue and collect damages for injuries to
the fruit on his 1,000 trees, the owner of one tree, and 1,000 owners of
trees within flying distance of an apiary can also collect. If an abundant
bee-pasture happens to exist a few miles away, the solution is easy and
the moving practical. But this is usually of short duration; civilization
and improvements, farms and fruit-gardens, soon follow, and the ery is
again, ‘““Move on!” On the other hand, it is claimed that the damages to
fruit alleged to be due to bees is too remote and uncertain; and as already
stated, the benefits from pollination are equal to, yes, far greater than the
damages. Few if any cases have reached the higher courts, and the judg-
ments of the low courts are largely based upon actual damages proved, end
identification of trespassing bees.

INJURY TO PERSON, OR PROPEEREN.

A small son of an Indiana farmer left the team he was driving, near
some bee-hives, while he chased a squirrel. The horses backed the wagon
onto the hives, and the animals were so badly stung that they died. The
boy was also stung so badly that he lost the sight of one eye. It was held
that the boy’s negligence occasioned the injury and resulting damages, and
no recovery could be had.

An Iowa farmer maintained a hitching-rack at the roadside in front of
his residence. Near by, but within his enclosure, he kept a number of
stands of bees. A neighbor voluntarily hitched his horses to the rack.
A swarm of bees settled upon the animals, causing them to break the
tethers and run away. In their flight they collided with a team and
vehicle going in an opposite direction, and both teams and vehicles were
damaged. It was held that the hitching of the horses near the bees was
a voluntary act, and the attack by the bees was too remote to justify a
recovery from the bee-keeper for the joint damages suffered by the owners
of the wrecked outfits. i

In the case of Earl vs. Van Alstine (8 Barbour, 630), the New York
Supreme Court held that the owner of bees is not liable, at all events, for
any accidental injury they may do; that one who owns or keeps an animal
of any kind becomes liable for any injury the animal may do, only on the

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION LL

ground of some actual or presumed negligence on his rart. It was
alleged in this case that defendant owned and wrongfully kept fifteen
hives of bees in his yard adjoining the public highway, and that the plain-
tiff’s horses, while traveling along the public highway, and passing the
place where the bees were kept, were attacked and stung so severely
that one died and the other was greatly injured. A judgment of $71 was
appealed from, and the court, in reversing this judgment said: “In an
action against the owner of bees for an injury done by them to the plain-
tiff’s horses while traveling along the highway where the bees were kept,
it appears that the bees had been kept in the same situation for nine
years, and there was no proof of any injuries ever having been done by
them, but, on the contrary, neighbors testified that they had been in the
habit of passing and repassing the place frequently, without having been
molested. This rebutted the idea of any notice to the bee-keeper, either
from the nature of the bees or otherwise that it would be dangerous to
keep them in that situation, and hence he could not be made liable.”

1—OFFENSE AGAINST PRIVATE PROPERTY; UNLAWFUL ENTICE-
MENT OF BEES—PENALTIBES.

Laws of Connecticut, 1882, Chapter 67, Central Stat. 1888, Sec, 1466,
provide that every person who shall place upon the premises of another
any tub, box, or other contrivance for the purpose of enticing swarms of
bees from the premises of their lawful owner shall be fined not more than
seven dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days.

2.—BEES, PROPERTY IN; DEPOSITS ON LAND.

Laws of Georgia, 1888, Chapter 2, Sec, 3074, Stat. 1895, provide that
any deposit made by wild animals on realty belongs to the owner; tkus
honey deposited by bees in a tree belongs to the owner of the tree, though
the bees may be hived by another; so the eggs and young birds, or the
increase of animals (bees), So long as they remain unable to leave the land,
belong to the owner.

3.—BEES, WITH HIVES AND HONEY, EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION.

Statute of Vermont, 1894, Sec. 1805, provides that, among the goods
or chattels of a debtor which are exempt from attachment and execution
to satisfy a judgment debt, are three swarms of bees and their hives, with
their produce in honey, provided the suit brought is not to recover pay-
ment for the purchase price thereof, or for material or labor expended on
the same.

4.—POISON, EXPOSING WITH INTENT TO DESTROY BEES—PENAL-
TIES.

Section 1247, Rev. Stat. Kentucky (Carroll), provides that if any person
on land or premises not in his possession or under his control shall lay or
expose any poisonous substance with intent to destroy honey-bees he shal! .
be fined not less than five nor more than fifty dollars.

Same, Code and Stat, Washington, Sec. 7161 (Laws ’97, p. 11), pro-
vides that it shall be unlawful for any person within the State of Wash-

12 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

ington to wilfully or maliciously kill or poison any honey-bees. It shall
further be unlawful for any person within said state to wilfully or malic.
iously place any poisonous or sweetened substance for the purpose of in-
juring honey-bees in any place where such poisoned or sweetened substance
is accessible to honey-bees within this state. Any person or persons
violating said law shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of
not tess than ten dollars or more than one hundred dollars.

5.—BEES, ENTERING PREMISES TO DISTURB, STEAL, OR CARRY
AWAY—PENALTY.

Laws of Ohio (Rev. Stat. 1890 (S & B), Sec. 6840) provide that who-
ever unlawfully enters the premises of another for the purpose of disturb-
ing, or carrying away any box, gum, or vessel containing bees or honey,
or injuring or carrying away any such property, shall be fined not more
than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than sixty days or both.
(G07 AL 5 SCG. eS. Geos, 20a

Same, Laws of Nebraska, 1879, Sec. 81, provide that, if any person
shall steal any hive, bee-palace, or other contrivance containing honey
or honey bees, the property of another, of less value than thirty-five dol-
lars; or if any person shal] steal honey from any such receptacle or other
contrivance, or shall wilfully and maliciously destroy, injure, or disturb
any of the aforesaid receptacles or other contrivances containing honey
or honey bees, or if any person shall steal, or by art, device, or contrivance,
or in any manner whatever, decoy from any such hive, box, bee-palace,
or contrivance any such honey bees, with intent to convert the same to his
own use, or with intent to damage or defraud the owner thereof, or by
any art or device, injure, damage, or destroy any such honey bees by
means of poison or otherwise, such offender shall be fined not exceeding
one hundred dollars, and be confined in the county jail not less than ten,
nor more than thirty days, and shall be liable to the party injured in
double the value of the property stolen, injured, or destroyed.

CITY BEE-KEEPING UPHELD.

—————
Case of the City of Rochester, N. Y., vs. W. R, Taunton,

In December, 1900, the City of Rochester, N. Y., had under consider:
ation the passage of an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of bees within
the city limits.. W. R. Taunton, a member of the National Bee-Keepers’
Association, living in the city, and whose business and liberties would be
interfered with by such ordinance, appealed to the general manager for
advice and assistance. Such printed matter as it was thought would be of
service to him was forwarded, and, with the assistance of able counsel,
Mr. Taunton succeeded in having the proposed ordinance, withdrawn.

But in April, 1901, the matter was revived, and through the persistent
efforts of one of the aldermen, and in spite of all objections and remon-
strances, the ordinance passed.

Mr. Taunton was advised not to remove his bees, and assured that if
he got into trouble the Association would defend him.

Mr. Marks—a director of the National Association—was requestes to

* NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 13

go to Rochester and make a complete investigation. He did so, and re-
ported that in his opinion Mr. Taunton was handling his bees in a manner
not to annoy neighbors, and thought he ought to be protected.

In corresponding with our attorney, Mr. Dutcher, the latter stated that
the police judge, before whom the case was likely to come, was an able
man, and thought the Association would better risk it there.

The case was tried upon a warrant of arrest for refusing to comply
with the ordinance, and the Judge of the Police Court rendered his decision,
setting aside the ordinance, and discharged the defendant.

Police Court of Rochester, N. Y. )
The People vs. Taunton. )

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT.

The defendant was arrested upon a warrant based upon an ordinance
passed by the Common Councli of the City of Rochester on April last,
which provides in substance that no bees shall be kept or maintained with-
in the limits of the city of Rochester, without the permission in writing of
the lot owners owning lots within one hundred feet of the lines within
which any bees are desired to be kept or maintained.

At the trial, the defendant moved that the warrant be dismissed and
the defendant discharged, upon the grounds:

First—That the ordinance upon which the warrant is based and which
defendant is accused of violating, is unconstitutional and void.

Secondly—That the ordinance in question is not fair, impartial and
reasonable, but is oppressive.

Thirdly—That the ordinance in question is an unlawful attempt on the
part of the Common Council to delegate its powers to private individuals.

Upon this motion, the defendant will not discuss the question whether
the Common Council has power to prohibit the keeping of bees, as that
question does not arise under the ordinance.

In the first place, the question whether the ordinance is unconstitu-
tional or whether it violates some other principle of law is a question of
law for the court and must be decided irrespective of the facts in any
particular case. ;

In People ex rel. Kemmler vs, Durston, 119 N. Y., at page 578, the
Court says: “If it can not be made to appear that a law is in conflict with
the Constitution by argument deduced from the language of the law itself
or from maiters of which a court can take judicial notice, then the act
must stand. The testimony of expert or other witnesses is not admissible
to show that in carrying out a law enacted by the legislature, some pro-
vision of the constitution may possibly be violated.”

In the Matter of Elevated Railroad, 70 N. Y., at page 327, Court
holds that a court can not take proof of facts for the purpose of showing
a statute valid and regular upon its face to be unconstitutional.

So that the question whether the ordinance is fair, impartial and
reasonable must be determined from the ordinance itself.

In Beach on Public Corporations, Sec, 515 the learned author says:
“It is a well-settled principle that a municipal by-law or ordinance must be
reasonable. The courts will decline to enforce it, it will be declared
void aS a matter of law.” :

And again at Section 514, the same author says: “It is, of course a

14 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

question of law and not of fact for the court, and not for the jury, whether
any specific ordinance is so unreasonable as to be void.”

FIRST.

The ordinance is passed under the so-called police powers of the city,
but the police powers of the city are not above the Constitution and
are subject to the control of the courts.

In Re Jacobs, 98 N. Y, 98, at page 110, the Court says: “These cita-
tions are sufficient to show that the police power is not without limita-
tions, and that in its exercise the legislature must respect the great fun-
damental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If this were otherwise,
the power of the legislature would be practically without limitation. In
the assumed exercise of the police power in the interest of health, the
welfare or safety of the public, every right of the citizen might be invaded
and every constitutional barrier swept away. Under the mere guise of
police regulations, personal rights and private property can not be arbi-
trarily invaded, and the determination of the legislature is not final or
conclusive. It matters not that the legislature may, in the title to the
act or in its body, declare that it is intended for the improvement of the
public health. Such a declaration does not conclude the courts, and they
must yet determine the fact declared and enforce the supreme law.”

SECOND.

The ordinance is unconstitutional for two reasons: First, it is an at-
tempt to take property without due process of law; and, secondly, the
ordinance denies the equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the
fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution,

In Stewart vs. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, due process of law is defined as
follows: “Due process of law is not confined to judicial proceedings, but
extends to every case which may deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or prop-
erty, whether the proceedings be judicial, administrative, or executive in
its nature.”

In Re Jacobs, supra, the facts were that the legislature passed a
statute prohibiting the making of cigars in tenement houses in New York
and Brooklyn.

The Court of Appeals set the statute aside as unconstitutional upon
the ground that it was depriving persons of property without due process
of law. The court says, at page 104: ‘What does this act attempt to do?
In form, it makes it a crime for a cigar-maker in New York and Brooklyn
the only cities in the state having a population exceeding 500,000, to carry
on a perfectly lawful trade in his own home. Whether he owns the tene-
ment house or has hired a room therein for the purpose of prosecuting his
trade, he can not manufacture therein his own tobacco into cigars for his
own use or for sale, and he will become a criminal for doing that which is
perfectly outside of the two cities named—everywhere else, so far as
we are able to learn, in the whole world.”

In the case at bar, the ordinance makes it lawful to keep bees in one
part of the city, provide certain consents can be given; but to keep the
_ bees in another part of the city would be unlawful if the consents were
not obtained.

The court further says in the case cited, at page 105: “The constitu-

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 15

tional guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his property without
due process of law may be violated without the physical taking of property
for public or private use. Property may be destroyed, or its value may be
annihilated; it is owned and kept for some useful purpose, and it has no
value unless it can be used. Its capability for enjoyment and adaptability
to some use are essentialcharacteristics and attributes without which prop-
erty can not be conceived; and, hence, any law which destroys it or its
value, or takes away any of its essential attributes deprives the owner of
his property.”

In® Butchers’ Union Co. vs. Creseent City Co., 111 U. S. 746, Judge
Field says: “The common businesses and callings of life, the ordinary
trades and pursuits, which are innocent in themselves, and have been fol-
lowed in all communities from the immemorial, must, therefore, be fiee
in this country to all alike upon the same terms The right to pursue
them without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to au per-
sons of the same age, sex and condition, is a distinguishing privilege which
they claim as their birth-right.” In the same case, Judge Bradley says:
“T hold that the liberty of pursuit, the right to follow any of the ordinary
eallings of life, is one of the privileges of a citizen of the United States,
of which he can not be deprived without invading his right to liberty
within the meaning of the constitution.”

In the case at bar, the ordinance attempts to deprive a person of his
property and prevent its use at the mere will of a private individual. The
duly constituted authorities of the City do not act in the matter at all, but
turn over their powers to private citizens who are taking the liberty at
their own sweet will to destroy the property belonging to another. Can
there be any question but that this is taking property without due process
of law?

Secondly—The ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies the equal
protection of the law, as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the
United States Constitution. Upon this point, we will call the attenticn
of the court to the case of Yick Wo vs, Hopkins, 117 U. S. 356. In this
case, the board of supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco
passed an ordinance which provided that it should be unlawful for any
person to establish, maintain or carry on a laundry within the corporate
limits of the City of San Francisco, without first having obtained the con-
sent of the Board of Supervisors, except the same be located in a build-
ing constructed either of brick or stone. It will be noticed that in the
San Francisco ordinance the consent of officiais was required, while in
the ordinance which we are discussing, only the consent of private in-
dividuals is required. An ordinance, which requires the consent of officials
is certainly more reasonable and proper than one which requires the con-
sent of individuals. Public officials are bound not only Ly the dictates of
their consciences, but also by the weight of the judicial oath, and are re-
sponsible to the people for their actions; while private individuals can act
at their own sweet will. In speaking of this ordinance passed by the
Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, the Supreme Court of the United
States says during the progress of its opinion: ‘‘We are not able to con-
cur in that interpretation of the power conferred upon the supervisors.
There is nothing in the ordinance which points to such a regulation of the
business of keeping and conducting laundries. They seem intended to
confer, and actually do confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a con-
sideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary

16 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

power to give or withhold consent, not only as to places, but as to persons.
The power given to them is not confided to their discretion in the legal
sense of that term, but is granted to their mere will. It is purely arbi-
trary and acknowledges neither guidance nor restraint.” And, again: “It
does not prescribe a rule and conditions, for the regulation of the use of
property for laundry purposes, to which all similarly situated may con-
form. It allows without restriction the use for such purposes of build-
ings of brick or stone; but as to wooden bulidings, constituting nearly all
those in previous use, it divides the owners or occupiers into two classes,
not having respect to their personal character and qualifications for the
business, nor the situation and nature and adaptation of the buildings
themselves, but merely by an arbitrary line, on one side of which are those
who are permitted to pursue their industry by the mere will and consent
of the supervisors, and the other those from whom that consent is with-
held, at their mere will and pleasure And both classes are alike only in
this: that they are tenants at will, under the supervisors, of their means
of living.” And, again: “For the very idea that one man may be com-
pelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essen-
tial to the enjoyment of life, as the mere will of another, seems to be in-
tolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of
slavery itself.” And, again: “The same principle has been more freely
extended to the quasi-legisiative acts of inferior municipal bodies in re-
spect to which it is an ancient jurisdiction of judicial tribunals to pro-
nounce upon the reasonableness and consequent validity of their by-laws.”
And, again: “Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in
appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with
en evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and
illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material
to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of
the Constitution.” And, again: “The discrimination is therefore illegal
and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal
protection of the laws and a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the
Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is therefore illegal,
and they must be discharged.”

No authority is needed except the case cited. A reading of the com-
plete opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States will show that that
high judicial authority condemned in the most severe terms ordinances
like the one which we are discussing, as being only not reasonable, but a
denial of the equal protection of the law.

THIRD. ads

The ordinance is void, not because it is unfair, partial and unreason-
able, but is oppressive.

In Beach on Public Corporations, Sec. 90, the author says: “A city,
although fully authorized to enact ordinances can not pass unreasonable
ones. The ordinance of a city must be reasonable. It must not be op-
pressive; it must not be partial or unfair.” The same author says, at
Section 512: “It is a well settled principle that a municipal law or ordi-
nance must be reasonable.”

In Dillon on Municipal Corporations, Sec. 319, the author says: “In
this country tke courts have often affirmed that general incidental power
of municipal corporations to make ordinances, but have always declared

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPER®S’ ASSOCIATION 17

that ordinances passed in virtue of the implied power, must be reason-
able and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the state.”

In the case of Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, supra, also held that municipal
corporations must be reasonable.

Can it be said that the ordinance syehee we are discusisng is reason-
able?

It does not provide that citizens living within one hundred feet, must
give their permission to keep bees, but that the owners of the lots wher-
ever they may live must give such permission. These owners might
live in New York, Buffalo, or Europe, and have no personal interest in the
matter and yet their permission is required. Again, under this ordinance,
permission might be obtained, and then, immediately afterwards, the lots
within one hundred feet of the place where bees are to be kept might be
sold, and permission would have to be obtained from the new owners,

Under this ordinance, a person who owns a lot in the outskirts of the
-city, a mile from any dwelling, might not be permitted to keep bees, while
a person living in a thickly populated district can keep bees, if he gets
the permission. In other words, under this ordinance, the owner of a
lot in the center of a city or adjoining a school house, may be permitted
to keep bees, while a person owning a lot in the outskirts of the city
would not be permitted to keep bees. In fact many illustrations might
be given, and will readily suggest themselves to the mind of the Court,
of the purely arbitrary character of this ordinance and the unjust manner
in which it may operate. The private citizen, from mere caprice or ill-
temper or bad feeling against the bee-owner may deprive him of the use
of his property.

In fact, the right depends wholly upon the personal inclinations and
caprice of adjoining lot owners.

FOURTH.

The ordinance in question is an unlawful attempt to delegate the pow-
ers conferred upon the Common Council to private individuals.

Article Two, Section 12, of the City Charter, provides that the Com-
mon Council “has authority to enact ordinances not inconsistent with the
laws of the State, for the government of the city and the management of
its business, for the preservation of good order, peace and good health,
for the safety and welfare of its inhabitants and the protection and security
of their property.”

This statute plainly contemplates that the discretion as to whether a
certain thing is or is not a nuisance must be vested in the Common
Council; but in the ordinance in question, that body has not determined
that bees are a nuisance, or that they should only be kept in certain pre-
seribed portions of the city, but the Common Council has turned its powers
and its diseretions entirely over to private individuals. That the Com-
mon Council has not passed upon the question as to whether or not bees
shall be kept, is illustrated by the fact that with the requisite permission
of adjoining owners, bees can be kept in every lot in the city of Rochester.
There is an ordinance in force which provides against intoxicants in pub-
lic places; but suppose an ordinance should be passed which would pro-
vide that a person might be intoxicated in a public place, provided he could
get the written permission of every person owning property within a cer-
tain distance of the place where he desires to get drunk—could such an
ordinance be supported in the courts? And yet, such an ordinance would
be precisely like the one in question.

18 _ BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

In Birdsall vs. Clark, 73 N. Y., 73, the Court holds that public powers
of trust devolved by law or charter upon the Common Council or govern-
ing body of a municipal corporation, to be exercised by or when and in
such manner as it shall judge best, can not be delegated by such body to
others.

The ordinance is not a determination by the Common Council that the
preservation of good order, peace and health, the safety and welfare of
the inhabitants of the city, and the protection and security of their prop-
erty demands that bees shall not be kept; but the ordinance leaves such
questions entirely to the determination of private individuals. Under the
ordinance, there is absolutely no restriction to the keeping of bees in any
part of the city, providing the bee-owner can obtain the consent of his
adjacent lot owners. There can be no question but that under the several
points made above, the ordinance in question is void and can not be en-
forced; and it follows that the defendant should be discharged.

FREDERICK L. DUTCHER,
Attorney for Defendant, Rochester, N. Y.
JOHN A. BARHITE, of Counsel.

TAXES ON BEES.
ge

In most of the States the bees are considered as personal property,
subject to assessment and taxes. Valuation ranging from 25c to $3.00
per colony. Generally however, the assessor takes the owner’s word as to
number of colonies spring count, and as a rule places valuation at $1.00
per hive reported. In a test case, it was decided bees are wild by nature,
uncertain, and not property. But that the hives and fixtures are personal
property, subject to taxes as other property. Again if the city or town
tax your bees, they are not a nuisance. A certain number of colonies in
majority of the States are exempt from taxes. (Wisconsin exempts five
colonies). In some states there is a special tax of from one cent to five
cents per colony on ail hives, to become a special fund, reserved to pay
expenses of an inspector of apiaries in said district. (See Ohio, Kentucky
and South Dakota laws.)

NO LICENSE,
eg

Decision of Chief Justice Bradley, U. S. Supreme Court, March 7, 1887.

No decision of the United Sttaes Supreme Court attracted more inter-
est than this by Chief Justice Bradley exempting agents, salesmen, solic-
itors, peddlers from special State, County, 6r Town taxes. Such special
license and tax laws are declared unconstitutional and any officer who
attempts to enforce them is individually liable for damages. :

The case under consideration, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, sold
goods by sample in Tennessee, and was arrested—fined for selling without
a license. Congress regulates commerce among the several States. The

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 19

failure of Congress to make express regulations indicate its will that
the subject shall be left free from any restrictions or impositions. Any
regulation of the subject by the States, except in matters of local concern
only, is repugnant to such freedom.

REGARDING SELLING HONEY.

Producers of honey can sell without license his goods. With help of
team if necessary. Does not have to label the same. But if it is labeled
the same shall not be misleading. (U. S. Pure Food Laws).

If you buy honey to sell, and in the city where sales are made have
a place of business, (your own place of business, or is a rented place),
there take and deliver orders, with help of horse if necessary, you for the
time have become a part of said city, and doing business, require no
license for same. Your rental of room is considered as paying taxes.
Also for the time you are residing in the city as a resident. After cer-
tain number of days would be entitled to the privilege of voting.

I know of several beekeepers shipping quantities of honey to them-
selves in cities, then renting a room in the city, there melting and bottling
the honey before taking orders in said city. Using horses to help de-
livery of same as any other merchant.

Purchased honey sold in original packages should have label on show-
ing from where and by whom produced. If the honey is sold in your |
packages, label should not be worded “Put Up By” (U. S. Food Laws), but
use the word “Distributor” under your name. To illustrate, I buy honey
of you, and sell in other packages, labeled ‘‘Pure Honey, N. H, France,
Distributor, FPuiatteville, Wis.”

BEES AND HORTICULTURE—THEIR RELATIONS MUTUAL.

——

The purpose of these clippings is to put into condensed form, for the
use of Bee-Keepers and Fruit-Growers, such information as is at hand,
derived from experience and recent investigations, relating to the economy
of Nature in plant and insect life, and to show their mutual interdepen-
dence.

RELATION OF BEES TO HORTICULTURE.

There is in plants or flowers what answers to sex in animals. Some-
times both sexes exist in the same flower, sometimes in different flowers
of the same plant, sometimes in separate plants. But whatever the plan
of growth, fruitfulness depends upon the fertilization or pollination of the
pistil by the grains of pollen produced on the stamen. The stigma, gener-
ally the upper part of the pistil, is a part neunded of the epidermis, touched
with a viscid (sticky) substance, and when the proper pollen adheres to
this part,, the pollen puts forth pollen-tubes which lengthen till they reach
the ovules, which completes fertilization and causes fruit or seed to grow.

Pollen and honey are necessary for the preservation of certain forms
of insect life, and the distribution of pollen by insects seems to be essen-
tial to the best development of the plants visited by them. Honey-bees
are the most important of all the pollen-distributing insects. They ap-

20 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

pear in greater numbers early in the season, and their great activity ren-
ders them more potent in this field of usefulness than any other species.
It is now quite well understood that insects are absolutely necessary to a
crop of cucumbers, melons or squashes, and bees are kept for the purpose
of pollinating them when grown on a large scale, if there is no apiary in
the neighborhood.

BEES AS POLLEN DISTRIBUTORS.

The honey-bee as a pollen-distributor is perhaps of greater value to
this country than the crop of honey produced. It has of late years oc-
curred to scientists that the honey-bee is of more benefit for distributing
pollen than all other sources combined. That we are largely indebted to
the honey-bee for both quantity and quality of our fine fruits there is but
little doubt. Not only fruits, but vegetables and cereals commonly grown
on the farm.

The honey-bee is a general pollen-gatherer wherever pollen is to be
found, and thus works an extensive territory. Bees thoroughly canvass
several miles in diameter in search of both pollen and honey, and are
always pollen-distributors whether they are engaged in gathering honey
or pollen.

Who has not seen the cornfields with their heavy laden tassels of pol-
len swarming with honey-bees? Also the clover fields, the buckwheat
fields, the orchards, the vegetable fields, and almost every wild flower that
produces either fruit or seed is daily visited by the busy bees, perhaps
every hour -in the day, thus distributing pollen from flower to flower,
industriously performing the work that Nature intended them to do.

Fruit-growers of the present have awakened to the fact’ that the
honey-bee is their best friend, and that bees and fruit-growing mnrust be
closely combined So it is all along the line of this immense field of labor
depending upon the honey-bee principally for successful returns. That
there are not enough bees to supply thoroughly this want there is little
doubt; many neighborhoods have but a few colonies of bees. In support
of this I would refer you to the State of California, which is the most
extensive bee-keeping State in the Union, and also the same in the pro-
duction of fruit—National Rural.

VALUE OF BEES IN CROSS POLLINATION.

One of the ways by which the benefits of crossing are insured
to plants is through their sterility to their own pollen Some fifty or more
species of plants are already known to be more or less completely fruit-
less when only pollen from the same plant is applied to their flowers, al-
though the same plants mature fruits and seeds when pollen from an-
other plant is used.

The nectar in pear-blossoms is secreted copiously in the disk, often
filling the cup with a large drop, and serves to attract bees and other
insects, as does also the pollen. The white, showy petals are a _ guide
to the insects, and as the flowers grow in clusters, and the clusters are
numerous, a tree in full bloom attracts insects from long distances, When
a bee alights on the flower, the stigma brushes from its hairy coat some
of the pollen which adhered to it in previous visits to other trees, and,
if these trees were of a different variety, the flowers are thus cross-
pollinated. The pistils mature two or three days before the stamens of

NATIONAL BGEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 21

the same flower, and the fully expanded sitgma often protrudes through
the petals before they are open, thus being pollinated from some earlier-
opening flower before the pollen of its own flower is ready—another means
by which cross-pollination takes place.

The apples resulting from some of the experiments were collected
and studied, and the results were found to be paralleled with those ob-
tained in the experiments with pears, the crosses being larger, more highly
colored, and better supplied with seed. For example, the hand-crossed
Baldwin apples were highly colored, well matured, and contained abun-
ant seeds, while the self-fertilized fruits were only slightly colored, were
but one-fourth or two-thirds the regular size, and seedless, The crosses
were, in other words, like the better specimens of apples, not bagged,
from the same tree, and the self-fertilized fruits corresponded with the
undersized, poorly-colored specimens.

The number of insect visitors in any orchard determines, to a great
extent, the amount of cross-pollination carried on. The pollen of the
pear and the apple is not produced in sufficient quantity, nor is it of the
right consistency to be carried by the wind, and the pollination of these
trees is therefore dependent on the activity of the insects. In an ordin-
ary spring there is usually an abundance of these insects to cross-pollinate
orchards of a few hundred trees thoroughly, but in the case of large com-
mercial orchards, especially where several are close to each other, there
is not a sufficient number of insects for cross pollination when the main
body of trees is in bloom, if there is no apiary in the neighborhood.
Therefore, each large orchardist should keep a number of colonies of bees
Honey-bees, and other members of the bee-family are the best workers
in cross-pollination.

Be sure there are sufficient bees in the neighborhood, or at least
within two or three miles, to visit the blossoms properly. When possible,
endeavor to favor the bees by selecting sheltered situations for the orchard,
or by planting wind-breaks.—Prof, M. B. Waite, in Year Book, Department
of Agriculture, for 1898.

SOME FRUITS ARE SELF-STERILE,

Careful experiments by entomologists have shown that bees are not
guilty of cutting open grapes and other fruits, as their mandibles are too
weak, and are not designed for such work. It is, of course, true that
after fruits have been torn open by wasps, birds, etc., the bees feed on the
pulp and juice——Prof. Hunter, of Kansas, before the American Nursery-
men at Chicago, June 14, 1899.

Bees are also very useful to the horticulturist, as they are able to
earry pollen from one flower to another and thus fertilize the flowers, As
many of our fruits are self-sterile, they could not fruit without this help
from the bees.

INSECTS NECESSARY.

If bees are kept from fruit-blossoms by netting or other artificial
means, the amount of fruit set is little or none. It not infrequently hap-
pens that inclement weather prevents or hinders the flying of bees dur-
ing the period when flowers are receptive. A fruit-tree, half of which
was subject to a continuous spray of water during the flowering period,
produced no fruit upon the sprayed portion, but an abundance upon the

22 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

other. A failure due to the above-mentioned cause can not well be pre-
vented, but may be modified by having bees near at hand to utilize the
short favorable periods which do occur.

An insufficient supply of bees will hinder the setting of fruit, and
while other insects may take part in the carrying of pollen, the fruit-
raiser must rely chiefly on honey-bees. Experience shows that, thougn
the hungry bees may fly two or three miles, hives should be within a mile
of the orchard or small-fruit patch.—Press Bulletin No. 8, of the Kansas
Experiment Station.

VALUE OF BEES UNDERESTIMATED.

The value of the honey-bee to the horticulturist is hardly realized by
many who are engaged in fruit-growing. The setting of fruit that will-
stay on the tree depends chiefly upon proper pollination, and in this work
the bee is largely instrumental. There are, of course, other instrumen-
talities, but none perhaps so effective. Experiments at the Oregon station
with the peach, throw a good deal of light on this subject. A number of
peach trees were forced into bloom under glass in November, and a col-
ony of bees wa's placed in the house as soon as the bloom began. For
several days a heavy fog prevented the bees from working, but on the
first bright day that came, the bees went to work and continued at it as
long as there was anything on the trees to work on. The result was that
at the stoning season, the time when unfertilized fruit drops, not a peach
fell from the trees, and the crop was so heavy that it had to be severely
thinned. As a check test one tree was so protected that the bees could
not get at it, and from this tree all the fruit dropped at the stoning
period. Insects, and especially bees, which have nectar-secreting instinct
as a motive-for labor and bloom, are an aid to pollination for which Na-
ture seems to have provided no adequate substitute. Their office is to
distribute pollen from flower to flower, and from tree to tree. Much of
the complaint about fruit falling would cease if horticulturists kept bees
in the orchard. For the protection of bees the horticulturist should never
spray while the trees are in bloom. He owes that much to these valu-
able assistants in his work.—Green’s Fruit Grower.

Apple and pear are among those trees which need some insect agency
to secure a proper fertilization of the blossoms. When men plead that
bees injure fruit by taking away the saccharine matter secreted for and
needed by the fruit in its development, they but show their ignorance, as
did those men a quarter of a century or more ago, when they passed a law
in a certain township in Massachusetts, banishing bees from that town.
The result was that little or no fruit developed in the interior of the town-
ship, while all along the boundary fruit was as plentiful as ever. After
this experience regarding their folly, they were glad to welcome the bees
back again.—G. M. Doolittle.

FLOWERS WAIT FOR BEES.

In Bienen-Vater are given results of experiments in which netting was
put over branches of trees at time of blooming. The time of blooming of
blossoms on such covered limbs was’ prolonged as if the blossoms were
waiting for the bees to fertilize them. On apple-trees the time of such
blossoms was prolonged one to three days more than the time of blossoms

me “ leat "

. NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 23

uncovered. Pear-blossoms were prolonged four to five days; plum, four
to seven days. No fruit set on the covered apple branches.—American
Bee Journal.

BEES NECESSARY UNDER GLASS.

The director of the School of Horticulture, at Villorde, France, placed
a colony of bees at the disposal of the peach-trees, under glass, at the
time of blooming in February. The crop, previously scant, was now un-
reasonably heavy.—La Progress Apicole.—(Gleanings.)

HE IS CONVINCED.

Four years ago, when [ rented one of the orchards which I am now
running, the owner had a large cherry orchard, and told me that for eight
years he did not get a cherry. He was about to dig up the trees when
some one advised him to try bees, which he did. The result was, that
for three or four years after he got the bees he sold his cherry crop in
Chicago and New York for about $4,000. His idea in keeping bees was
only to fertilize the fruit-bloom.

I shall increase to one hundred colonies, as I have 140 acres of trees
for them to work on.—F. L. Morrill, of California, in Gleanings, June 1,
1899.

BEES NECESSARY IN SQUASH FIELDS.

Mr. Gregory, of Massachusetts, proved conclusively that the honey
secreted in the squash flower was of no value whatever, except to entice
insects. He says, the female blossoms of the squash are So covered and
hidden by the tall leaves, that it is evident that the fertilizing pollen must
be conveyed to them by the bees, to whom the squash-field appears to be
a rich harvest-field. All of the crossing or mixing of squashes is caused
by the pollen from the male flower of one variety being carried by the
bees to the female flower of another variety. - He further states that, if
the bees are kept from these female blossoms by mans of netting or other-
wise, the embryo squash, at their base, will always turn yellow and die,
unless pollen is carried by man from male to female blossoms, as is done
in the hybridizing of squashes to produce different varieties. The primary
reason why a squash grows is to protect and afford nutriment to the seed,
the use of it as food being a secondary matter. Why is honey placed in
the flowers? To attract insects that the blossoms may be properly fer-
tilized, primarily; and, secondly, for food for these insects. The same is
true of cucumbers, melons, peas, pumpkins and tomatoes,

BEES AID THE FRUIT INDUSTRY.

In seven localities in Austria, last year, experiments on the fertilizing
of fruit-blossoms were conducted according to a concerted plan on a variety
of trees and shrubs, but were all too few, and fortunately the social bees
were brought along with the fruits. Even the social native insect, like
the social wasps and bumble-bees, are very few in spring when the fruit
blooms, and so are absolutely inadequate to pollinate our orchard trees.
The non-seeding of red clover for the early first crop is because the bum-
ble-bees are too few to cross-pollinate the bloom properly. It is possible-
that in this case the flowers are fertile to the pollen of other red clover
blossoms, but not to their own.

/

24 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

The orchardist then must have the bees. To drive them away
would be to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Again, bees never attack sound fruit. They only come when bird,
wasp, or sultry weather, combined with over-ripeness, break the rind and
cause the juice to exude. Possibly bees could bite open the skin of the
fruit, but positively they never do. Yet let the juice once ooze, and the
bees quickly hie to tree or drying-tray, and leave the little behind to show
what was once there.

When we remember that nearly 90 per cent of the ripe fruit is juice,
and that the bees take this, we see that little would be left. The juice
often oozes from very ripe fruit, and so bees are often in the vineyard to
the great annoyance of those who would gather in the vintage. Fruit on
the trays in the drying-yard has the skin removed, or is cut open, and so
the bees may take most of it unless repelled by sulphuring, which is now
generally done. We see, then, that bees are a disturbance at times, and
annoy the orchardist greatly. Then must the apiarist be driven off. Not
so say the European pomologists. They want the bees, and there is no
quarrel between the two industries. Not so, say the most intelligent fruit-
men of our State and country, for we must have the bees to aid us in time
of bloom. What then? It may be wise to move the bees temporarily on
rare occasions when the annoyance is most severe. If so, who should bear
the expense? Surely, not the bee-keeper, for he was the pioneer in the
region, and has a first, or at least an equal right. The removal is for the
fruit-man, and he should bear the most, if not all, of the expense. But each
should know all the facts, that bees are never harmful to flowers, but al-
ways necessary to best success, and they are only injurious to wounded
fruit; that if they are temporarily removed it is for the good of the fruit-
man, and he should bear the expense. The harm is usually not great,
and the annoyance usually almost nothing, so that if the bee-men and the
fruit-men donate the one to the other of their choicest products. and cul-
tivate the good-feeling, and not enmity, each may be a tremendous blessing
to the other, and all the best of neighbors.—Prof, A. J. Cook, Los Angeles
County, California.

THE POLLINATION OF CLOVER.

Prof, Chas. W. Burkett, last year, covered patches of clover heads
six feet square with mosquito netting. He gives the results as follows:

The result showing the number of seeds in each 100 head was as
follows: First crop, covered, 0; uncovered, 10. Second crop, covered, 2;
uncovered, 612. Near bumble-bees’ nest, 2,300. Of course, all insects
were excluded, but the experiment proves that insects are necessary and
we know that bumble-bees are the principal workers in the pollination of
clover blossoms.

The careful experiments of Prof. Waite and others at the experiment
stations show that the honey-bee is in the clover fields. In Germany the
humble-bee is protected by legal enactments. With us every nest is de-
stroyed at once after discovery.—Prof. J. L. Budd, Horticulturist, Iowa
Agricultural College.

CROSS-POLLINATION ADVANTAGEOUS.

One of the laws of Nature is that the crossing of races produces off-

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 25

spring with greater vigor, endurance, and faculty of reproduction

Fruits succeed better when the pollen, which fertilizes the pistil,
comes from some other blossom; and the insects are entrusted with the
mission of transporting this pollen from one blossom to another, while
gathering it for their own use. In some plants, fertilization would have
been impossible without the aid of insects. For instance, some plants,
such as willows are deciduous, having their male organs on one tree and
their female organs on another.

If those horticulturists who regard the bee as any enemy, could ex-
terminate the race, they would act with as little wisdom as those who
attempt to banish from their inhospitable premises every insectivorous
bird which helps itself to a small part of the abundance it has aided in
producing.—Langsroth on the Honey-Bee,” as revised by Dadant.

Prof. A. J. Cook’s careful experiment in Michigan. In each particular
case an equal number of blossoms were selected from adjacent branches.
One lot was marked with a tag, the other surrounded hy cheese-cloth. I
can not enter into details, but these are the results:

Covered Uncovered

Blooms. Fruits. Fruits.

NCNM ee tr Mee EID Poo cate. isi % 40 0 15
Pep Cmneerene. cin biG se ue leer aie ecw 8 75 0 3
‘CESIO . JET 010 St ce aus en Peg a ee 200 0 3
ASOT ER ae ge ee 160 2 9
rege a 2 at Sar eae ee ne 140 0 t
(CUP SIC ye nee nee ae ee 300 9 119
SkeawPernies ..i...00... PeLSeR IST ts GA VIGO 9 27

Oe ee ee ee ees ea Zale, 80 104

einen Dr) ety Laie eee 2 5% ole hte Res 123 20 36
FES OSS ce ek 184 9 160
CORT TEEN) 2 | eee eR: ay a/Gilocs yes lord esis «8 10 h’ds 0 191
NCTE GWELD) la bi s). aes avec wees cae ee 10 h’ds 0 541

Again, in 1894, since his removal to California, Prof. Cook made similar
experiments with plums, cherries, and pears. Following is the result: _

Bees Not
Covered. Enclosed. Covered.
TEU EUATIG) 8 Soe SU ele Soe a age eee eee Oe 0 3 8
Soo Tien SO eh eg eer aye ene cannes Tanya A 0 5 5
‘CLLIGTH PA Rete Petar: Ra reas ROT a Yes. 2 Rone 0 5 i
PIC aS or A Sd. cI ew. knee eh eee etek Auhiees 0 6 8
RR ee ce icsritew et ake oie te, oP Ai eae wien 0 8 ‘lal

In one experiment with the plum, Prof, Cook covered a branch, and
when it was in bloom, and the bees working on the trees, he removed the
sack, and keeping watch, marked the blossoms on which he saw bees work.
When he ceased watching, the branch was recovered, and at length the
four blossoms alone, on which he saw bees alight, developed into plums.

GOOSEBERRIES.

Among the small fruits gooseberries are absolutely dependent on in-
sects. The failure of this crop is not so uniformly the result, as some
suppose, of frost; cold weather at the critical time, keeping the bees with-
in, often being the chief cause.—Prof. Frank Cheshire, an English author
of recognized scienitfic standing.

The same is true of raspberries, blackberries and currants,

26 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

BEES IN ORCHARDS—VALUABLE.
Seesee” ae

Albert Lane of Vorden, California, engaged in beekeeping and fruit.
Has bees for sale, all his apiaries located in his orchards of peaches,
cherries, and apricots. So eager are neighbors to have his bees visit
their fruit trees that they furnish him all the locations he wants. One
orchardist makes stands for him to place hives on. Another furnishes
stands and a well made shed. In another orchard a large barn is given
to his use. Another apiary had hives painted various colors under 2 good
shed. The orchardist, furnished the paint and shed, to make it orna-
mental as well as useful. All along the Sacramento valley fruit growers
realize that to get crops of early fruit, they must have me aid of honey
bees.—(Gleanings.) .

In Wisconsin, several times one of its most extensive agiple growers
has attended the Wisconsin State Beekeepers’ Convention, offering any
beekeeper free location for an apiary in his orchards, and offering steady
work for owner if he wished. All this to get direct benefit of the bees
in his fruit bloom. Cold or stormy time during open bloom, he said, and
one-half day of good weather during open bloom, and bees located near
by, might tell the story of a crop of apples, or failure if bees could not
get out.

All the larger bearing orchards in Wisconsin now have an apiary in
the orchard or near by. Spray before and after open bloom.

GEORGIA HORTICULTURAL REPORT 27TH—(By W. Newell.)

“The wind may to some extent distribute pollen, but the most impor-
tant agency is that of insects. Various wasps, beetles, butterflies, and
bees visit the blossoms in quest of nectar, and carry the grains of pollen
from one to another. However, no insect so effectually accomplishes this
distribution of the pollen as the honey bee, and by various students this
insect is regarded as of more importance in this respect than all others
combined. The more honey bees there are in the vicinity of the orchard
the more thorough will be the pollination. Many fruit growers state
positively, that the fruit yield has been materially increased after the
introduction of several colonies of bees into their orchards.

POLLINATION OF THE APPLE.
Se

By C. Il, Lewis and C. C. Vincent, of the Oregon Agricultural College Ex-
periment Station, Bulletin No. 104 February, 1909.

5. Out of 87 varieties of apples worked with, 59 varieties were found
to be self-sterile; 15 varieties self-fertile; and 13 varieties partially self-
fertile.

18. Wind is a poor agent in transferring pollen from tree to tree.
Bees and insects appear to be the principal pollen distributors,

19. The floral envelope serves to attract the attention of the bees.
They will, however, to a certain degree, visit ss in which the floral”
envelope has been removed.

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 27

To verify our last experiment the following work was carried on.
A 7-year-old tree, containing 1,500 blossoms, was emasculated and left
exposed to the wind and insect visitation. ' The object of this experiment
was two-fold:—First, to determine if pollen was transmitted through the
air in sufficient quantities to insure cross-pollination; second, to determine
if removing the floral part of the blossom would affect the visits of insects.
The tree operated upon was located about twenty feet from another tree
that blossomed profusely. It is generally conceded by many experimenters
that the honey bee is attracted to the blossom by the inflorescence. ‘The
results obtained will be a fair index to the truth of this statemen, Out
of the 1,500 blossoms emasculated only five set fruit. During the whole
period that the pistils of these blossoms remained receptive, only eight
bees visited the tree. More than twice that number was seen in one half
hour on the tree twenty feet away. Since only a small portion of the
emasculated blossoms set fruit, it is manifest that pollen is not transmitted
through the air in sufficient quantities to insure cross-pollination. While
this experiment demonstrated the fact that bees will visit trees when the
floral part of the blossom is removed, they are not attracted in sufficient
numbers to insure perfect pollination. It is apparent that the showy
petals of the blossoms aid materially in attracting the bees. The blos-
som is well supplied with nectar, and the open character of nectar makes
it accessible to almost all insects. The bees, in trying to reach the nec-
tar, brush against the anthers and carry away with them, on their hairy
legs and abdomen, large quantities of pollen. The insects in visiting other
blossoms transfer some of the foreign pollen to these pistils. Since the
wind aids so little in cross-pollination it is evident that the various insecis,
especially the bees, are carriers of pollen from one variety to another.

As the assurance of a crop depends upon insects as distributers of
the pollen, it is necessary that apiaries be established in the different
fruit sections With favorable climatic conditions and proper planting of
varieties the bees would insure pollination.

Highty-seven varieties of apple bloom were selected. The blossom
buds were covered with paper bags to keep bees and insects away until
the bloom was closed or set. Out of this great number of bags protecting
the bloom, 4,800 bags failed to have one set fruit. And but a few set
where the blossoms were hand-treated. The pollen being placed with
fine camel’s hair brush, each variety having its own brush. This Bulletin
also has a large picture of an apiary in an orchard “FREES bees as
necessary to insure pollination.

BEES DO NOT PUNCTURE SOUND FRUIT.

Case—Utter & Utter at Goshen, N., Y., 1901.

Two brothers in court against each other. One claiming his brother’s
bees ate and destroyed his peaches, claiming damages. In the lower
court the justice decides against the beekeeper, fining him $25 and costs.
The National Beekeepers Association took the case before the high court,
with assistance of valuable witnesses, Mr, Frank Benton of Washington,
D. C., O. L. Hershiser of Buffalo, N. Y., A. I. and E. R. Root of Medina,
Ohio, and W. F, Marks, Chapinville, N. Y. Thirty witnesses had been

28 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

examined, on both sides, when the jury gave a verdict, unanimous to the
effect BEES DO NOT PUNCTURE SOUND FRUIT. Mr. Benton showed ~
that the honeybee kad a soft pliable tongue and could not puncture sound
fruit. The inner tongue is spoon-shapea, covered with hairs. It-can not
become rigid. The bee laps its food, called nectar. Its fellers are soft
and can not pierce anything, being organs of touch and smell. Birds and
other insects do the puncturing, then bees may suck the wasting juices.

BEES AND GRAPES.

Bees have been accused of puncturing grapes and damaging same for
the market. As in the case above, the honeybee is unable to perform
such work. Cape May warblers, Baltimore orioles, and some wasps will
pierce the skin of sound grapes, leaving small pinholes which later are
visited by bees (if scarcity of honey from flowers), sucking out the wast-
ing juices and sometimes leaving a shriveled skin. In many such cases
the beekeeper can, in large degree, check the trouble by outside feeding
of honey or sugar syrup, being careful that the bees can not get the feed
very fast, just so as to keep them from the punctured decaying fruit.
Again, doors should be screened where fruit is stored, or where fruit-
canning is being done. City fruit stands should have mosquito-netting or
glass over them.

BEES DO NOT INJURE SOUND FRUIT.

Several times complaints have been charged against bees as injuring
fruit, and each time the National Bee-Keepers’ Association has investigated
the case, and satisfied the court the charges were not true. As a witness
of such testimony, after the honey season, when the bees would take any .
sweets left exposed, I cut bunches of ripe, sound grapes, of six varieties,
hung said bunches one day exposed in my home apiary of 150 colonies,
and not a grape was injured. I then hung the grapes in an upper hive-
body, over a strong colony, one day with the same results. Then I took
the same bunches atid punctured the skin of ten grapes in each bunch,
left them another day to find the bees had not injured a sound grape.
This was repeated every other day until all the grapes were opened by
me, and in return the bees had saved the wasting juice. Bees do not
puncture sound fruit, but some kinds of wasps and birds will puncture all
kinds of fruit, and when punctured are not and never will be good fruit.
So what the bees save is the better for all. A similar series of experi-
ments I have proven with various tree and shrub fruit.—N. BH. France,
Platteville, Wis. ;

NATIONAL BEE-KE®SPERS’ ASSOCIATION 29

Three-story observation hive; fruit in upper hive.

One of the exhibits of bees at the Grange Fair in Wilmington, Delaware,
Held in September, 1908,

An exhibit at Wilmington, Dela., 1909, showing bees do not puncture
sound fruit. In the case above hangs sound grapes, a pear and a peach.
A card on lower side of upper hive states, “Bees do not injure sound fruit.”

30 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

In districts of California where raisin growing is a business, also
along the southern shore of Lake Erie, where grape growing is among the
prominent farm crops, the complaints of bees damaging grapes, in years
favorable for overripe fruit bursting the skins, or punctured by other par-
ties, has been quite general, so long as no honey-yielding flowers were
open. At such times the beekeeper can abate the trouble greatly by feed-
ing a little outside, but not so bees get the feed very fast.

Again, at fairs where an apiary is located near by, and bees are work-
ing at stands of sweets, or waste material back of eating houses, a little
feeding of the bees a few days will abate the trouble. Screen such places.

POISON SPRAYING KILLING BEES.

—

(See Ohio Bulletin 68, pages 48 to 53).

A mixture of Paris green, 4 oz. to 50 gal. of water, sprayed on a Lom-
bard plum tree, in full bloom, at 2 p, m. The tree was then enclosed with
cloth and netting. A hive bees was set inside enclosure. By night several
hundred bees were either dead or dying. Analysis were made of same and
arsenic found present in each, even after the bodies were washed beiore
testing, the poison being inside of abdomens. The second experiment was
made on apple trees May 4, 5 and 6; dead bees under the trees were pick-
up, with similar analysis. These experiments were greatly hindered by
frequent rains, but concludes the report thus:

“In summing up the matter I can see no other conclusion that can be
drawn from the results of my experiments than that the bees are liable
to be poisoned by spraying the bloom of fruit trees, and that all bloom
must have fallen from the trees before the danger will have ceased. We
now have conclusive proof of the effect on bees of the use of arsenical
poisons in orchards while the trees are in bloom.”

POISON SPRAYING OF OPEN BLOOM KILLS THE FRUIT.

ee
(Green’s Fruit Grower).

Still more recent investigations show that it is not necessary to spray
for the codling moth when the trees are in bloom, but that it is a POSI-
TIVE DETRIMENT to the fruit to spray at such time. Professor Beach
of the New York Experimental Station experimented in two orchards in
Ontario county and two in Niagara county. He sprayed some trees in all
the orchards and left two others contigous without spraying. All the trees
were full of bloom. On the trees sprayed but few apples set, a large pro-
portion of the blossoms falling before the fruit set, while on those not
sprayed, a very large crop of fruit grew. To make this more conclusive,
he selected trees full of blossoms alike on both sides and sprayed one
side of each tree. Result: On the sides sprayed the fruit set very spar-
ingly, while on the opposite side not sprayed, a heavy burden of fruit
grew. He concludes that wkere you fairly hit an apple blossom with
-Paris green strong enough to kill insects it will certainly kill the blossom.

oe ee

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 31

In the Vermont Experimental Station report No. 12, page 205, F. A.
Waugh states:

“Furthermore, it may be said that spraying, when trees are in bloom,
is entirely useless. It is a waste of time and spraying material. It may
be directly injurious to the blossoms and it may kill the bees. There is
everything against it, and nothing in its favor. SPRAY BEFORE BLOS-
SOMING and after the petals fall, but NEVER WHILE THE BLOSSOMS
ARE OPEN.”

MORE ABOUT THAT CASE WHERE 300 COLONIES WERE POISONED
FROM THE SPRAYING OF FRUIT TREES WHILE IN BLOOM.

Sa ee

Five yards here are located within a radius of one and a half miles
of the orchard where the spray was used, and they all went down at that
time, and no other yards in the valley showed any symptoms. That was
proof enough for me; but I realize that definite facts are needed, and I
should have liked to have an analysis of the poison. What facts I can
give are as follows: ;

The man who sprayed his trees used 2 lbs, arsenate of lead to a bar-
rel of water. He sprayed just before the last blooms dropped the petals.
Five days after the spraying I noted that all was not well, but did not
look into the hives until on the seventh day, when I found 14 dead colonies
and took note that three-fourths of the strong hives had dwindled to about
the strength of a weak three-frame nucleus. In others I found only the
queen and fifty to one hundred workers alive. In all cases the queens
seemed to live right up to the last. I concluded that, since the queen is
fed predigested food, only bees not yet poisoned lived long enough to feed
the queen. Finally she probably ate some of the poisoned honey, for I
caged about ten of these queens, which I found left with only a few bees,
and took them off to another yard to put in some three-frame nuclei I had
at the time, and half of them were dead when I got there; and of the five
introduced, only one lived.

On the tenth day some of the hives which had been as strong as three-
frame nuclei had dwindled so as to have aimost no living brood, and about
enough bees to make a one-frame nucleus. I tecok the queens from these
and used them with perfect success to re-queen three-frame nuclei in other
yards. To their bees I gave virgins and cells, and in that way made gooa
use of them as queen-raising nuclei. Since the poison hit out queen
raising yard it set us back with our queens, and we noted that many of
the cells which were being sealed at that time did not hatch, and showed
evidence of the poison when cut open later.

In regard to distance, the bees seem to have died almost as much at
a distance of one and one-half miles as those located only a few hundred
yards from the orchard. | O. B. METCALFE.

Mesilla Park, New Mexico, June 20.

DANGEROUS PRACTICE.
——___@———__=

Spraying fruit trees while in bloom (page 48) with arsenical mixtures
is dangerous, and in fair weather is liable not only to kill the bees that

32 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

frequent the bloom, but also to destroy the young brood that are being
fed at that time. Spraying should not be done until all the bloom has
fallen.—Prof, F. M. Webster, Bulletin 68, Ohio Agricultural Experiment
Station.

Fruit trees should never be sprayed when in bloom, on account of the
liability of poisoning honey bees or other insects useful as cross-fertilizers.
—Farmers’ Bulletin No. 19, United States Department of Agriculture, by
C. L, Marlott, M. §S.

INJURY TO BLOSSOMS.

pee ee ee

The trees should not be sprayed while in blossom, for the spray may
injure the delicate parts of the flower, and the poison may kill the bees
and other insects that play an important part in fertilizing the blossoms.
—Bulletin No. 86, New Series, New York Agricultural Experiment Station,
by S. A. Beach and W. Paddock,

Never spray a fruit tree while it is in bloom. You may injure the
delicate stigma, and prevent pollination, and there is also danger of kili-
ing the bees.—Bulletin No. 36, Missouri Agricultural Station, by I. M, Sted-
man,

IT SHOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR,

Soe Sees

Spraying fruit trees in early spring to prevent the ravages of various
insects is becoming very common. Spraying trees while in bloom is very
likely to poison the nectar and destroy the honey-bee. This has been
done in several cases. Not only have the matured bees been poisoned, but
the brood has also been destroyed. The fact is very apparent that fruil-
growers are nearly, or quite, as much interested in the presence of bees
as are the bee-keepers. Pomologisits then may well join hands with the
apiarist in demanding and securing a law making it a grave misdemeanor
to spray fruit trees while they are in bloom.—Bulletin No. 26, Division of
Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture.

Prof. L, H. Bailey of Cornell University says: “The grower himself
must decide when and how often to spray, because he should know what
enemies he desires to reach. If he has bud-moth he should spray with
the first swelling of the buds, and if he has plum scale he should spray
in the winter. But, leaving the special insects aside, it is safe to say that
for the two staple enemies—the apple-scab and the coddling-moth—at least
two sprayings should be given. I am not yet convinced that spraying when
the tree is dormant has any appreciable effect in destroying the apple-
scab fungus. As a general statement I should say, spray twice upon
apples and pears—once just as the fruit buds and breaks open, but be-
fore the flowers expand, and again just as the last blossoms fall. In both
cases I should use a combination of Bordeaux mixture and Paris green.
The first spraying is for the scab fungus in particular, and for this Bor-
deaux is used; but the Paris green will most likely be of service in destroy-
ing various leaf-eating insects.—Bulletin 101, Cornell University Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, by L. H. Bailey. -

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 33

- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INSECT INVESTIGATION.

a Sarees

A. L. Quaintanee, insect investigator, Washington, D. C., writes the
following letter March 8, 1909:

“T think there is no shadow of doubt but that this practice will result
in the death of the bees visiting flowers. The extent of the injury to
neighboring hives will depend somewhat upon the character of the weather,
as influencing the activity of the bees. Several experiments have been
made on this subject; and it is the accumulated experience of practical
bee-keepers generally that spraying in bloom does not poison bees. I re-
fer you to Insect Life, vol. 7, p. 132; American Bee Journal, 1897, No. 14,
pp. 211-212; also Geneva, N. Y., experiments. There is, however, but lit-
tle if any necessity for spraying fruit trees in bloom. With the exception
of canker worms, there are no insects at present known to me which can
not as well or better be treated by application of arsenicals immediately
before blossoming or after the petals have fallen.”

LAWS ON POISON SPRAYING,

sees ape eee

Several states have laws upon poison spraying on open fruit bloom
I give some of same:

LAWS OF NEW YORK.

Became a law March 22, 1900, with the approval of the Governor.
Passed, three-fifths being present.

Sec. 1. Any person who shall spray with, or apply in any way poison
or any poisonous substance, to fruit trees while the same are in blossom,
is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than ten dol-
lars nor more than fifty dollars; provided, however, that nothing in this
section shall prevent the directors of the experimental stations at Ithaca
and Geneva from conducting experiments in the application of poison and
spraying mixtures to fruit trees while in blossom.

Sec, 2. This act shall take effect immediately,
LAWS OF MICHIGAN.

Act of 1895. Approved May 4.

Sec. 1. That it shall be the duty of every owner, possessor or occupier :
of an orchard, nursery or vineyard, or of land where fruit trees or vines
are grown within this state, to spray with a poisonous solution as dis-
infectant, and of sufficient strength to destroy such injurious insects or
contagious disease, all fruit trees or vines grown on such lands which
may be infected with any contagious disease known to be injurious to fruit
or fruit trees or vines; provided, that if such trees or vines are infested
with the San Jose or other scale insects, such trees or vines shall be either
effectually sprayed or destroyed. Provided also, that no such spraying
shall be done while said fruit trees or vines are in blossom, except in case
of canker worm. ;

34 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

LAWS OF COLORADO.

Chapter 55. Laws of 1897,

Sec. 8. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to spray fruit
trees while in bloom with any substance injurious to bees.

Sec. 9. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Act shali
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punihsed
by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not less than 10 days
nor more than 100 days, or by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than
$100. Any justice of the peace, or district or county’ courts of the respec-
tive counties, shall have jurisdiction to try any case arising under the
provisions of this Act.

SPRAYING FRUIT TREES IN BLOOM ILLEGAL IN CANADA.

ae ae

This practice is prohibited by an Act of Parliament assented ‘to in
1892, the provisions of which are as follows:

Sec. 1. No person in spraying or sprinkling fruit trees during the
period within which such trees are in full bloom shall use, or cause to be
used, any mixture containing Paris green or any other poisonous sub-
stance injurious to bees.

Sec. 2. Any person contravening the provisions of this Act shall, on
summary conviction thereof, before a justice of the peace, be subject to
a penalty of not less than $1 or more than $5 with or without costs of
prosecution, and in case of a fine or a fine and costs being awarded, and of
the same being upon conviction forthwith paid, the justice may commit
the offender to the common jail, there to be imprisoned for any term not
exceeding thirty days, unless the fine and costs are sooner paid.

The best fruit growers consider spraying, during the period of full
bloom, as a useless waste of material, and harmful to the setting of fruit.
It is universally condemned by entomologists in every part of America,
The recommended formulas as sent out by both the Federal and Provin-
cial Departments of Agriculture state distinctly to spray apple orchards
with Bordeaux and Paris green: (1) Just as leaf buds are expanding; (2)
just before blossoms open; (3) just after blossoms fall; (4) every ten
days later if required. :

Bee-keepers and fruit growers are both urged to see that this harm
ful practice is stopped.

PEAR BLIGHT.
age

The Cause of Pear Blight; Some Varieties Immune to It; The Opinion of
An Extensive Fruit Grower.

In the first place, I have an orchard of 1,800 fruit trees, just coming
in bearing of which 900 are pear trees. I have 13 colonies of bees, and
am on a deal for 16 more. Now, we have had a very wet season, and,
only for a dry winter and spring, crops would not have been planted.
Nearly all pear trees near here on black soil are badly blighted. My pear
orchard is on high clay land; and, although some of the trees were white

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 35

with blossoms, I have no blight whatever. I have only such varieties as
are not subject to blight—Keiffer, Garber, Duchess; and now to have good
fruit of any kind we must have bees or some insects to mix pollen. Take
away bees and other insects, and we should have practically no good fruit.
Major Holsinger of Kansas has Kieffer and Leconte pear trees, planted 15
years, side by side. Bees have hummed from one tree to the other. Re-
sult: Leconte trees are all dead from blight; Keiffer are sound, and bear-
ing heavily every year. Now, if men will plant the right varieties on
suitable land they need not worry about trees or blight. Too rich soil will
cause blight to any variety; but some varieties are more proof against it
than others.

Before I planted a commercial orchard, I read everything I could find
on pear culture, and asked many questions through different papers, some
being answered by professors in horticulture. I also visited many or-
chards, large and small,

Some growers said that, if I had never planted a Bartlett, Idaho or
Leconte, I would never have been bothered with the blight, or at least
not so soon. I arrived at these conclusions:

1. That pear blight is a contagious disease, and when once started in
an orchard it will spread if not cut out very promptly.

2. That it is a disease of the sap, and that lots of supposed blight is
death to the tree only from overbearing and other causes.

Pear. trees are rapid growers and the wood is very sappy. If I cut off
a limb from any healthy pear tree in June or July and lay it in the sun,
it will turn nearly coal black, so that even experienced pear-growers would
say blight when there was no blight,

When I planted only such varieties as are not subject to blight, I did
not mean that they were entirely proof against the disease. I have also
had Lincoln and some others, but did not wish to confuse a beginner with
too many varieties. These three are the best. I found where Kieffers
blighted on clay land, they had nearly always been heavily fertilized, and
from many other observatious which are too long to discuss here. I finally
decided that, if I planted only such varieties on high clay land as are not
so apt to blight, give them no manure, nor cultivate them late in the sea-
son, and not plant any varieties that are bad blighters, I should not get
the blight started; or if it did start I could control it better. So far my
orchard proves I am right.

This has been the worst year for blight I have ever seen; have to-
day examined my orchard of nine hundred trees, and now make this offer
if Mr. Gray doubts statements concerning it: I will deposit money in the
bank at Williamsfield, sufficient to pay his fare to and from that place,
meet him at the station, and show him my orchard; and if he can find one
single twig on any of my nine hundred trees blighted, then I will pay all
his expenses; but if he finds them all entirely free from blight, then he
pays his own expenses. I can also take him to an orchard of several hun-
dred trees only a mile from Williamsfield, on rich black soil, nearly ruin-
ed this year by blight. I make this offer in good faith,

Many made the mistake of planting all kinds at high prices—among
them a few Lecontes or Bartletts, which started blight and gave it to
others. I planted only one-year two-foot trees, as they will, I believe,
make healthier trees than larger ones.

If we had not bees or other insects, we could not raise pears success-
fully. ‘Why blame the bees?”

36 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

The pear, being a very rapid grower on only moderately fertile soils,
if stimulated by barn yard manure or any fertilizer containing an abund-
ance of nitrogen, it will cause the tree to produce an unnatural growth,
and render it subject to inoculation by said bacteria or germs. By so
stimulating year trees, especially of bad blighting varieties, these same
germs will originate without any inoculation whatever. This I have proven
to my own satisfaction and by my own experience; and have my orchard
free from blight, though blight was all around me, to prove my theory
correct so far.

After having read carefully all I can find on blight bacteria, I have yet
to see a single case where a bee has been examined and found to carry
bacteria. So, let us not pass judgment on the bee until all the evidence
is in, both pro and con. So far, all evidence against it is purely circum-
stantial and light in weight as experience shows; for in a season of fine
dry weather, when the bees are permitted to work on blossoms all through
bloom, and if weather continues dry, blight seldom spreads at all; but in
wet seasons like last year, when the bees are prevented from visiting the
blossoms, much blight may be expected. J. EK. JOHNSON.

Williamsfield, II].

I do not believe that bees scatter the blight, for many trees blight and
die long before they bloom. My observations lead me to believe the blight
is a sap disease, not caused by bees or any other kind of insects.

Atwood, Jl, J. W. C. GRAY.

The very fact that young trees that have never been in bloom, and
“which bees have never visited or been near, are just as badly blighted as
the old trees, goes to show that the sources of the disease are due to some
agency outside of the bees. As ants are very numerous in warm coun-
tries it is reasonable to assume they play a very important part in the
spread of pear blight in California. EH, R. ROOT.

ADDITIONAL PROOF THAT BEES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
PEAR BLIGHT.

It appears strange that an intelligent community of pear growers
should accuse honey-bees of disseminating the blight. That the all-wise
Creator would create so useful an insect, and let it be the means of spread-
ing disease and death while pollenizing the bloom to insure the setting of
the fruit, is increditable. If bees spread the disease, why do trees die with
it that have never bloomed?

About twenty-five years ago, every pear tree in this vicinity blighted,
and many died. One morning I was admiring @ fine pear tree. Its leaves
were green and shiny. At noon I was surprised to see its branches black
and withering. No one knew whence the blight came or whither it went;
for, like an Arab, it silently folded its tent and departed, and has not ap-.
peared here since. We had a Flemish-Beauty pear tree that was killed to
the ground with blight; but a sprout came up above the graft, and bore
four bushels of lovely pears this year.

About ten years ago, while traveling through Northwest Florida, I

—

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATICN 37

greatly admired the pear orchards—row upon row of fine trees without a
break. The blight came and destroyed them. A grower told the writer
that, whether trees were cultivated or uncultivated, mulched or irrigated,
they died all the same. I had in Florida a row of four Leconte pear trees
and one Keiffer. The Lecontes were blighted, killed to the ground. Two
sent up very strong shoots. The others were entirely dead. I had fertil-
ized these trees abundantly, and they made great growth, and bore heavily
—that is the Lecontes; but the Keiffer grew slowly, and bore heavily. If
the bees carry blight, why didn’t they carry it from the Lecontes to the
Keiffers?

In the future I’ll not cultivate nor disturb the soil under my pear trees,
for I noticed trees growing in yards, that were tramped around, never cul-
tivated or fertilized, didn’t blight. I may spread under them ashes and
lime, or a coating of decayed leaves, and turn them over to the care of the
Almighty.

Peoria, Ill., October, 1902. MRS. L. HARRISON.

THE BEE AND PEAR BLIGHT; THE SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA.

paleda ts gs US

Trouble arouse in 1902 between the pear growers on the one side and
the bee men on the other, in the vicinity of Hanford, Cal., a great fruit-
growing region near the center of the state. The first mentioned alleged
that the blight that was killing the trees was scattered by the bees, be-
cause the microbes causing the disease, and which they claimed was in
the nectaries of the flowers of affected trees, were scattered by the bees
to the nectaries of flowers of healthy trees.

As a member of the National Bee-Keepers’ Association, I appeared at
the scene of the trouble, in behalf of the bee-keepers. The result of our
meeting was that a compromise was agreed on, by which, for the purpose
of experiment, all bees in a given vicinity were to be removed by the bee-
men voluntarily for one season, to determine whether the spread of pear
blight could be mitigated.

When I left, there was good feeling.

i was assured, while on the ground, that pear blight is something that
comes and goes in spite of the bees. This admission was made by some
of the fair-minded pear men. If that be the case, the terrible blight that
has devastated the vicinity of some of the best bearing trees will disappear
of its own accord, and in the course of a few years these conflicting rela-
tions between the two industries will be forgotten.

It will be remembered that the bee and fruit men were preparing for 4
conflict; that the latter averred that they would set out poison if the bee
men did not remove their bees from the vicinity of the pear trees; and
the National Bee-Keepers’ Association was appealed to, and, as an officer
of that association, the writer appeared on the field to see what sort of
compromise could be effected. The result of this visit was that a truce
was declared, and the bee-keepers for experimental purposes, decided to
remove their bees from the infected regions—at least during the time the
trees were in bloom; but in spite of the fact that the majority of bee-keepers
kept this agreement in good faith, there would be an occasional bee-keeper,
even among the fruit growers, who would still leave his bees in the old

38 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

location. It was evident that, unless everyone complied with the proposi-
tion, no benefit would accrue.

One of the largest pear growers in California told me that the pear
men themselves were largely responsible for the spreading of the disease.

It is evident that all the fruit growers will have to take unusual pre-
caution to examine every twig in their orchards, and cut out the diseased
portions. The failure of one pear grower will put in jeopardy the interest
of all the growers in his vicinity, to say nothing of the fearful damage
among his own trees.

I omitted to mention that Dr. Waite says that the pruning-knife or
shears must be dipped in some disinfecting medium every time it cuts off
a limb of a tree. It would be monstrous foolishness to scatter the blight
from tree to tree in the very act of preventing such spread.

Of course, Dr. Waite’s new plan may not prove to be entirely effec-
tive, from want of perfect co-operation and thoroughness. If they fail to
take the means at hand, then the bee men can hardly be held accountable
before the courts. E. R. ROOT

F. E, Brown, secretary of the Central California Bee-Keepers’ Associa-
tion, immediately made an investigation and reported his findings. He
visited the Downing orchards and several others in that vicinity. True
several of the large trees were protected by the netting so that no bees
could get at the blossoms; and there is plenty of blight and no more fruit
upon these trees than on the trees not protected. The reason is, the fruit
was not pollenized, and the blossom with the stem dropped off.

ALFALFA

eg

TROUBLE BETWEEN BEE MEN AND ALFALFA GROWERS IN
NEVADA.

————__ —__-—_=

It is a well-known fact that Nevada produces many carloads of fine
alfalfa honey. So much of it is shipped out of the state that the alfalfa-
growers and the cattle-men are getting their heads together, arguing that
all this sweetness is just so much saccharine matter taken out of their
hay. One of the largest ranchers is a representative in the legislature of
Nevada, and it appears that efforts are on foot to get a law passed at the
next session of the legislature, prohibiting bee-keepers from locating bee-
yards within sight of the alfalfa fields. This would practically mean the
wiping out of all bee-keeping interests in a very important honey-producing
state, and, besides setting a dangerous precedent for other states. The
argument made by the cattle-men and ranchers is this: Carload after car-
load of alfalfa honey is being shipped out of the state. The best hay is
the first cutting, and the first crop of blossoms is also the best for the
bee-keeper. They argue “that a ton of honey probably represents the es-
sence of 200 tons of alfalfa, and that the hay is just that much poorer in
sacchine matter. * * * It stands to reason that you cannot take all of
this honey out of the hay, and still have it as rich in saccharine matter.”
In this day of progress and scientific investigation, it is staggering to hear

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATICN 39

such talk. Of course, the bee-keepers are ridiculing such sheer nonsense,
for it cannot be based on anything else than consummate ignorance and
prejudice. It is a well-known fact that red-clover hay will not develop
properly unless there are honey-bees or humble-bees in the vicinity; that
attempts were made to grow the plant in Australia, but it failed miserably
until bumble-bees were introduced. Exactly the same thing will apply in
growing alfalfa. While it would be too much to claim that this kind of
hay cannot be grown without bees, yet it is safe to say that a much poorer
crop would be the result without them. We can also assert, without fear
of successful contradiction, that the best scientific men in the world, as
well as professors in all the agriculture colleges, can show that the asser-
tion of the cattle-men is utterly without foundation,

The animus of the whole thing is evidently jealousy. Whenever one
class of citizens make a little money, there gre plenty of people who will
be envious of them.

I do not know what the National Association is doing or has done about
the matter; but I do not believe that its 1,500 members will allow any such
foolish and ignorant legislation to come to pass without a vigorous fight.
Like the other case reported in these columns, the whole thing is so ridic-
ulous that I think the bee-keepers will be easily able to thwart any efforts
that may be made to pass a law of this kind. But we must not be over:
confident. We must be alert, and ready to know what the opposition pro-
poses to do, and meet them half way. EK. RR. ROOT:

H. W. SMITHKONS, North Amherst, Ohio,

You speak of the butterflies on alfalfa, and say you were told they “eat
the blossom.” If you had stopped to remember that butterflies have no
mouth-parts to eat, like grasshoppers, which often eat off clover blossoms,
but that they have a tiny slender tongue for licking or sucking up sweets,
I don’t think you would have believed that report.

YELLOW BUTTERFLIES NOT ENEMIES OF THE ALFALFA PLANT.

ee eee

Mr. Root:—The yellow butterflies (species of colios) never injure
clover of any kind, nor any plants. They sip nectar from flowers, and may
and do aid some in pollination. The caterpillars do at times eat from the-
clovers; but so far as I have ever observed, they are never abundant enough
to do any considerable harm. I know of only two serious enemies of al-
falfa—gophers and goldthread, or dodder. | A. J. COOK.

Claremont, Calif.

(It was probably a mistake in supposing that the yellow butterflies had
any blighting effect on the blossoms of alfalfa. The fact that they swarm-
ed over the fields in countless thousands, so that the air was yellow with
them over the fields shows that they were after the nectar as well as the
bees, and to the extent that they robbed the bees of just so much honey,
to that extent they were an enemy to the bee-keeper. We are obliged to
Professor Cook end others for the correction, E. R. ROOT.

40 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

HOW BUTTERFLIES INDIRECTLY DO DAMAGE TO ALFALFA.

SSS

- While the butterflies themselves probably do a great deal of damage
by sucking the nectar from the blossoms, thus depriving the bees of large
quantities of honey, the worst damage is done by the worms which hatch
from the eggs laid by the butterflies. They are something like a web
worm, and are very destructive here some seasons, not only eating prac-
tically all the blossoms, and so destroying all chances of a seed crop, but
they also do much damage to the hay crop by eating a large proportion
of the leaves. EK. S. WEBSTER.

Hutchinson, Kan., February 27.

LAWS

WISCONSIN.

The Governor may appoint for a term of two years a State Inspector
of Apiaries. Said inspector shall, when notified of existence of disease
known as Foul Brood among apiaries ,examine all such as are reported,
and all others in the same locality, and ascertain whether or not such dis-
ease exists, and if satisfied of its existence shall give the owner or person
who has care of such apairies full instructions as to manner of treating
them,

Within a reasonable time after making such examination, the inspector
shall make another examination thereof, and if the condition of any of
them is such as in his judgment renders it necessary, he may burn all
the colonies of bees and all the comb necessary to prevent the spread of
the disease.

Such inspector shall, before such burning, ‘give the notice provided for
in and otherwise proceed pursuant to the provisions of section 1492, b.
The inspecter shall make, at the close of each calendar year, a report to
the Governor, stating the number of apiaries visited, the number of those
diseased and treated, the number of colonies of bees destroyed and of the
expense incurred in the performance of his duties. Said inspector shall ©
receive four dollars for each day actually and necessarily spent in the per-
formance of his duties and be reimbursed the money expended by him
in defraying expenses; provided, that total expenditures for such purposes
shall not exceed seven hundred dollars per year.

Sale of a Diseased Apiary, Etc. Vol. 2, Chap, 187, Section 4605a.—
Any owner of a diseased apiary of honey made or taken from such an apiary,
or appliances taken from such an apiary, who shall sell, barter or give
away any such apiary, honey or appliances, or bees from such an apiary,
expose other bees to the dangers of contracting such disease, or refuse
to allow the inspector of apiaries to inspect such apiary, honey or ap-
pliances shall be fined not less than fifty dollors nor more than one hun-
dred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than one month
nor more than two months.—Sec. 4, chapter 150, 1897.

aw ey ae i oie a = an

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 41

NEW YORK.

Sec. 80.—The prevention of Disease Among Bees.—No person shall
keep in his apiary any colony of bees affected with a contagious malady
known as foul brood or black brood; and every bee-keeper when he be-
comes aware of the existence of either of such disease among his bees,
shall immediately notify the commissioner of agriculture of the existence
of such disease,

Sec. 81.—Duties of the Commissioner.—The commissioner of agricul-
ture shall immediately upon receiving notice of the existence of foul brood
or black brood among the bees in any locality, send some competent per-
son or persons to examine the apiary or apiaries reported to him as being
affected, and all the other apiaries in the immediate locality of the apiary
or apiaries so reported; if foul brood or black brood is found to exist in
them, the person or persons so sent by the commissioner of agriculture
shall give the owners or caretakers of the diseased apiary or apiaries full
instructions how to treat said cases. The commissioner of agriculture shail
cause said apiary or apiaries to be visited from time to time as he may
deem best and if after proper treatment, the said bees shall not be cured
of the disease known as foul brood or black brood then he may cause the
same to be destroyed in such manner as may be necessary to prevent the
spread of the said disease. For the purpose of enforcing this act the
commissioner of agriculture, his agents, employes, appointees or counsel,
shall have access, ingress and egress to all places where bees or honey
or appliances used in apiaries may be, which it is believed are in any way
affected with the said disease of foul brood or black brood or where it is
believed any commodity is offered or exposed for sale in violation of the
provisions of this act. No owner or caretaker of a diseased apiary, honey
or appliances shall sell, barter or give away any bees, honey or appliances
from said diseased apiary, which shall expose other bees to the danger of
said diseases, nor refuse to allow the said commissioner of agriculture, or
the person or persons appointed by him to inspect said apiary, honey, or
appliances, and do such things as the said commissioner of agriculture or
the person or persons appointed by him shall deem tecessary for the
eradication of said diseases. Any person who disregards or violates any
of the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punished by a@ fine of not less than thirty dollars nor more than one hun-
dred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than one
month nor more than two months, or by both fine and imprisonment,

AGENTS—BEE INSPECTION WORK.

Appointed under the provisions of chapter 33 of the General Laws, as
amended by chapter 223 of the Laws of 1899 and chapter 214 of the Laws
of 1902.

First Division—Wheeler D. Wright, agent, Altamont, N, Y.

Second Division—N. D. West, agent, Middleurg, N. Y.

Third Division—Charles Stewart. agent, Sammonsville, N. Y.

Fourth Division—Mortimer Stevens, Pennellville, N, Y.

MICHIGAN,
(Act No. 66, Public Acts, 1901.
Section 1. The Dairy and Food Commission upon receipt of a certified

42 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

copy of the record of the Michigan State Bee-Keepers ’Association, by the
secretary of said association, showing that a majority of the members of
said association recommended the appointment of an inspector of apiaries,
shall appoint a State inspector of apiaries. Said inspector shall be re-
sponsible to the Dairy and Food Commissioner and shall comply with such
rules and regulation as the Dairy and Food Commissioner shall from time
to time prescribe for the carrying out of the work of said State inspector.

Sec. 2. The Dairy and Food Commissioner shall, when notified in
writing by the owner of an apiary or by three disinterested taxpayers in
the vicinity of the apiary, cause the inspector to examine such apiaries as
are reported and all others in the same locality not reported, and ascertain
whether or not the disease known as foul brood or other contagious dis-
ease exists in such apiaries, and if satisfied of the existence of foul brood,
he shall give the owner or care-taker of the diseased apiaries full instruc-
tions how to treat said case as in the inspector’s judgment seems best. .

Sec, 3. The inspector who shall be the sole judge may visit all dis-
eased apiaries a second time and if need be burn all colonies of bees and
combs that may be found not cured of foul brood or other contagious dis-
eases.

Sec. 4. If the owner of a diseased apiary, honey or appliances shall
knowingly or willfully sell, barter, or give away any bees, honey or appli-
ances, or expose other bees to the danger of said disease or refuse to al-
low said inspector to inspect such apiary, honey or appliances, said own-
ers shall on conviction before a justice of the peace, be liable to a fine of
not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or not less
than one month’s imprisonment in. the county jail, nor more than two
months’ imprisonment.

Sec, 5. In addition to such individual reports as are required under
this act by the inspector of apiaries, he shall make an annual report to
the Dairy and Food Commissioner, giving the number of the apiaries visit-
ed, the number of diseased apiaries found, the number of colonies treated,
also the number of colonies destroyed by fire, and an itemized account of
his transportation expenses with affidavit annexed thereto.

Sec. 6. There is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the State
treasury not otherwise appropriated a sum not exceeding five hundred dol-
lars per year for the suppression of foul brood among bees in Michigan.
The inspector shall receive five dollars per day and actual transportation
expenses for actual time served, which sum shall not exceed the money
hereby appropriated, to be paid by the State treasurer upon warrants
drawn by the Auditor General and approved by the Dairy and Food Com-
missioner. :

MISSOURI.
APIARIES—INSPECTION.

AN ACT to provide for the appointment of a state inspector of apiaries, and
to regulate the duties thereof; providing a penalty for disposing of, or
importing into this state diseased honey or bees, or for hindering the
inspector in the fulfillment of his duties, with an emergency clause.
Section 1. Inspector of bees—appointment—term—quailification.

Sec. 2. Duty of inspector.
Sec. 3. May enter premises to perform duty.

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 43

Sec. 4. Report, to whom made—to contain what?

Sec. 5. Salary.

Sec. 6. Owner of diseased bees not to sell.

Sec. 7. Emergency.

Be it Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

Section 1. The state board of agriculture of the State of Missouri
shall appoint a state inspector of apiaries to aid and assist in the develop-
ment and protection of the honey industry in the State of Missouri, and for
the prevention and suppression of contagious or infectious diseases among
-honey bees, such as foul brood, black brood, paralysis, etc., which is said to
exist at the present time among some of the apiaries of the state. Said
inspector of apiaries shall be a practical apiarist, and shall give to the said
board of agriculture, before his appointment, satisfactory evidence of his
practical knowledge of handling bees and of their diseases, and shall hold
his office for the term of two years, unless removed for cause.

. Sec. 2. Said inspector shall, whon notified of the existence of the

disease known as foul brood, or other infectious disease among apiaries,
examine such reported apiaries and all others, in the same locality, and if
satisfied of the existence of foul brood, or any other infectious disease, shall
give to the owner or person having charge of any such apiary full instruc-
tions as to the manner of treating them. Within a reasonable time after
making the first examination, the inspector shall make a second examina-
tion, and if the conditions of any of the colonies affected is such as, in
his judgment, renders it necessary, he may personally treat the disease, or,
if in his opinion, it is necessary to prevent further spread of the dis-
ease, and the owner refuses to treat them according to the instructions of
said inspector, then the inspector may burn or otherwise destroy such dis-
eased bees, comb or other material that might cause the spread of the in-
fection. |

Sec. 38. Said inspector shall have the right to enter any Lasinehaspe
where bees are kept, for the performance of his duties.

Sec. 4. The inspector shall make a full report to the secretary of the
board of agriculture at least once each year, stating the number of apiaries
inspected, the number found to be diseased, and the number treated, and
such other information as he may deem important. The secretary of the
board of agriculture shall publish, in his annual report, or otherwise, such
of the information as he deems of importance to the apiarists of the state.

Sec. 5. Said inspector shall receive four dollars for each day actually
and necessarily spent in the performance of his duties, and shall be re-
imbursed for the money expended by him in defraying necessary traveling
expenses: Provided, the total expenditure for such purposes shall not ex-
ceed one thousand dollars in any one year: Provided further, that the
said inspector shall render to the board of agriculture an itemized account
of his per diem and expenses, and upon approval of the same by the
executive committee of the board of agriculture, the prcsident and secre-
tary of the board are instructed to draw a warrant upon any available
funds for the amounts allowed.

Sec. 6. Any owner of a diseased apiary, or any person, persons, com-
pany or corporation who shall knowingly sell, barter, give away or import
into this state any colony or colonies of bees, honey or other article in-
fected with disease, or expose other bees to the danger of contracting such
disease, or refuse to allow the apiary inspector to inspect or treat such
apiary, honey or other articles so infected, or shall resist, impede or hin-

44 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

der him in any way in the discharge of his duties, under the provisions of
this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than
ten nor more than twenty-five dollars for each offense.

Sec. 7. It being necessary to treat the diseases herein provided for
in the spring vr summer, in order that satisfactory results may be obtained,
creates an emergency within the meaning of the Constitution, and this act
shall go into force and effect upon its passage and approval.

Approved March 8, 1907.

NEBRASKA.

(a) Laws of Nebraska (Chap. 3, Act 1885, Chap. 8a, Ann’d Stat. Neb.
1901), makes it unlawful for anyone to keep or have in possession in this
state, any honey bees, brood comb, or honey known to possess or to be in-
-fected with the disease known as foul brood, or with any other infectious
or contagious disease peculiar to bees or honey, or to keep or have in
possession any bee hive or other receptacle in which any foul brood, dis:
eased bees, or infected honey is known to have been kept.

(b) Destruction, Penalty—Any honey bees, brood comb, or honey own-
ed or kept or found tin this state, known to be affected or infected; and
any bee hive or other receptacle in which any bees, brood comb, or honey |
shall have been kept, known to be, or have been infected as set out in
section (a), shall be destroyed immediately and completely by burning.
Any person who shall be the owner, possessor, or care-taker thereof, who
refuses or neglects to immediately cause the same to be destroyed, as pro-
vided herein, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon convic-
tion thereof shall pay a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hun-
dred dollars, or be imprisoned in jail not more than 30 days for each offense.

(c) Inspection.—Every person owning or keeping honey bees in this
state shall cause the same to be inspected at his own expense, at least once
a year in infected districts. This includes each and every brood or colony
of bees, brood comb, and honey in his possession or under his control, and
the procuring of a certificate of such inspection showing the true condi-
tion of each and every one of the above named articles in his possession
as to the existence of foul brood or other infections or contagious diseases
in duplicate, one of which duplicates shall be left with such person, and
the other filed in the county clerk’s office, where such bees or honey or
brood comb is kept. 5

(d) Treatment.—If, upon inspection, the disease of foul brood or other
disease or infection or contagion shall be found to exist, and the inspector.
shall be of the opinion that, by proper treatment, such disease, contagion
or infection may be removed, he shall so certify officially in his certificate
of inspection, and the owner or keeper of such bees shall be entitled to
keep such bees for the period of six months for treatment; and if not
eradicated at the expiration of such time, such bees shall be destroyed as
herein before described; and any person having in possession any brood
comb, bee hive, honey or apparatus used in connection with bee culture,
found in like manner to be infected, such person shall be allowed thirty
days in which to disinfect the same; and if said disinfection shall not have
been completed at the expiration of thirty days, such brood comb, bee
hive, honey or apparatus shall be burned as hereinafter provided.

(e) Penalty—Every person neglecting or refusing to cause all such
bees to be duly inspected as provided herein, shall be deemed guilty of a

NATIONAL BIEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 45

misdemeanor and shall pay a fine of not less than ten nor more than one
hundred dollars for each offense upon conviction thereof.

(f) Inspection, Pay.—Upon the application of the Nebraska Bee-
Keepers’ Association, or other person or persons interested in bee culture
residing in any county of the state, the Governor may appoint a suitable
resident inspector of bees and honey of said county, whose sworn duty it
is to inspect all bees, brood comb and honey, within said county, when re-
quested and shall receive two dollars per day for his services, to be paid
by the owner, agent, or lessee in whose possession such bees, brood comb
or honey may be when inspected. Such inspector shall make certificates

in duplicate as provided in section (c).

COLORADO.

(a) Laws of Colorado, approved April 16, 1891, (Laws 1891, p. 41),
provide for the appointment by the county court, upon application of the
Colorado Bee-Keepers’ Association, or of any five actual bee-keepers resi-
dent in any county, of a competent, actual bee-keeper, resident of said
county, to be county inspector of bees. Application shall be based upon
information and belief that the disease known as foul brood, or any other
contagious or infectious disease, exists, and must name the actual bee-
keepers of the county, so far as known to the applicants,

(b) Oath of Office.—The person so appointed shall within five days,
file with the Clerk of the Court his acceptance of the office, and the usual
oath of office. The inspector shall hold office during the pleasure of the
court and until his successor is appointed and qualified.

(c) Bee-keepers give Notice of Foul Brood—Penalty.—A bee-keeper or
other person aware of the existence of foul brood, either in his own apiary
or elsewhere shall immediately notify the county inspector, if there be one;
if not, the secretary of the Colorado Bee-Keepers’ Association, of the exist-
ence of such disease, and in default of so doing he shall, on summary con:
viction before a justice, be liable to a fine of five dollars and costs,

(d) Duty of Inspector; Owners; Treatment.—On receiving notice from
any source of the existence of the aforesaid disease, the inspector shali
forthwith inspect each colony of bees and all hives, implements and ap-
paratus, honey and supplies used in connection with such apiary, and mark
those he believes to be infected, and notify the owner or agent thereof and
the latter shall, within five days, faithfully apply and carry out such treat-
ment of the diseased colonies as may have been prescribed by the State
Bee-Keepers’ Association for such cases, and thoroughly disinfect, to the
satisfaction of the inspector, all hives, houses, combs, honey and apparatus
used in connection with any such diseased colonies; or the owner or agent
may elect within the same time, to destroy said bees, hives. comb, comb
houses and apparatus by fire or burial.

It is the duty of the inspector and his assistants, after inspecting hives
or fixtures, or handling.diseased bees before leaving the premises and pro-
ceeding to another apiary, to thoroughly disinfect their person and clothing.

(e) Box Hives—Transfer.—The inspector may, in his discretion, ordez
any owner or possessor of bees dwelling in box hives in apiaries where the
disease exists (being mere boxes without frames), to transfer such bees to
movable-frame hives within a specified time, and, in default of such trans-
fer, the inspector may destroy or order the destruction of such hives and
the bees therein.

46 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

(f) Penalty for Selling Diseased Bees or Infected Appliances—Any one
who knowingly sells, barters, or gives away, moves, or allows to be moved,
a diseased colony or colonies of bees, be they queen or workers, or infected
appliances, he shall, on conviction before any justice, be liable to a fine
not less than $50 nor more than $100, or to county jail imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two months.

(g) Selling Infected Property: Exposing Infected Things—Penalty.—
Any person whose bees have been destroyed or treated for foul brood, whe
sells or offers for sale any bees, hives, or appurtenances after such destruc-
tion or treatment, before being authorized by the inspector to do so, or
exposes in his bee-yard or elsewhere any infected comb honey or other in-
fected thing, or conceals the fact that said disease exists among his bees
shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than $20 nor more than
$50 or imprisonment in the county jail not less than one nor more than
two months.

(h) Disobedience, and Resistance to Inspector—Seizure—When an
Owner or possessor of bees disobeys the direction of the inspector, or
offers resistance or obstructs said inspector in his duty, the latter may
apply to a justice for special constable to proceed with him to the prem-
ises of such owner, and assist the inspector to seize all the diseased col-
onies and infected appurtenances, and burn them forthwith, and if nec-
essary, cause the arrest of the said owner or possessor, and have him
dealt with according to the provisions of section (g).

(i) Inspector Must Read or Deliver Copy of Act.—The inspector shall
read over to such person the provisions of this act, or shall cause a copy
thereof to be delivered to him, before proceeding against him for its viola-
tion,

-(j) Annual Report.—The said inspector shall include in his annual
report to the president of the Colorado State Bee-Keepers’ Association a
statement of his work during the preceding year, the number of colonies
inspected, the number diseased, the number destroyed by fire or other-
wise; the names of the owners, and the localities where found, and the
amount paid to him for his services and expenses for the year.

(k) Compensation—Payment by County.—The county inspector of
bees receives four dollars per day, and two dollars for each half day nec-
essarily and actually employed, together with his necessary and actual!
expenses while so employed, payable by the county as other claims against
the county are audited and paid.

CALIFORNIA.

(a) County Inspection of Apiaries——Laws of California (Laws of 1901.
Chap. XXIV., Stat. 1901), provide that, upon petition of ten or more resi-
dent property-holders and possessors of an apiary or place where bees are
kept, to the board of supervisors of any county, stating that certain or all
apiaries within the county are infected with the disease known as foul
brood, or any other disease infectious or contagious, and injurious to bees,
their eggs, or larvae, that an inspector be appointed by them to super-.
vise the treatment of said bees and apiaries, the said board shall, within
twenty days, appoint a suitable person, who shall be a skilled bee-keeper,
inspector of apiaries. Upon petition of a like number of resident prop-
erty holders and possessor of an apiary, the board may remove said in-
spector for cause, after a hearing.

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 47

(b) Duties of Inspector.—It shall be the duty of the inspector in
each county to cause an inspection to be made when he deems it nec-
essary; and if any foul brood, infectious or contagious disease injurious
to bees or their eggs or larvae be found, he shall notify the owner or per-
son in charge of said apiaries or place where bees are kept, and he snall
require such persons to eradicate and remove such disease or cause of
contagion within a certain time to be specified. Notice may be served
by an inspector or by deputy or after the manner of a summons in a civil
action. Any and all apiaries or places where bees are kept, etc., found
infected with disease are declared to be a nuisance; and neglect or re-
fusal of the owner or agent to abate the nuisance within the time spec-
ified, it shall be the duty of the inspector to abate the same by treatment
or destroying the infected hives, bees and comb. The expense thereof
shall be allowed by the board of supervisors, and paid out of the generai
fund of the county,

(c) Salary.—The salary of the county inspector of apiaries shall be
three dollars a day when actually engaged in the performance of his duties.

(d) The act of 1883, approved March 30, providing for inspection of
apiaries, ete., is hereby repealed.

UTAH.

(a) Bee Inspection; Inspector.—Laws of Utah (Rev. Stat. 1898 Sec.
139 to 143 inclusive) provide for the appointment of the county commis-
sioners of one cr more qualified persons inspectors of bees for their respec-
tive counties. Such inspectors shall hold office for two years, qualify and
give bond. No appointment is made except on petition of a majority of
the-keepers of said county.

(b) Pay of Inspectors; Tax on Bees.—Inspectors shall be paid out
of the county treasury for services actually rendered, at such rate per day
as the board of county commissioners may fix. Each colony of bees is
assessed, and taxed in the same manner as other property is assessed
and taxed, and collected by the county,

(c) Duties and Powers of Inspector.—All hives of bees in each county
shall be carefully inspected at least once each year by a county or dis-
trict inspector, where such inspector has been appointed; and at any time
upon complaint that disease exists among the bees of any person, the
inspector to whom the complaint is made shall immediately inspect the
bees said to be infected. He shall have authority to take charge and con-
trol of diseased bees and their hives, and tools and implements used in
connection therewith for treatment; or to destroy such bees, broods, or
hives and their contents, or implements, as may be affected. The owner
may question a decision of the inspector concerning the presence of dis-
ease, and may appeal to three arbitrators selected from among bee-keepers
of the county, one each by the owner and inspector, and the third by the
two chosen, whose decision, concurred in by two of the number, shall be
conciusive as to the condition of the bees at the time of such examination.

(d) Obstructing Inspector—Penalty.—Any person who obstructs or
hinders an inspector in the performance of his duty shall, on conviction
thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined for the first offense
not less than five nor more than twenty-five dollars; and for additional
offense, any sum not exceeding fifty dollars.

48 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

NEW MEXICO.

CHAPTER 30.—AN ACT relative to the inspection of bees and creating
the cffice of inspector of bees. H. B. No. 105; Approved March 16,
1907.

Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico:
Section 1—Upon the written application, under oath, of any five ac-

tual bee-keepers, residing in any precinct in this Territory, alleged upon
information and belief, that the disease known as foul brood, or any other
contagious or infectious disease, exists among the bees in said precinct,
er that infected articles are kept in said precinct, and that there is dan-
ger that such disease will spread to other apiaries, being made to the
chairman of the board of county commissioners of the county in which
said precinct is located, the said board, appoint some competent, actual
bee-keeper, residing in said precinct, to be precinct inspector of bees; and
the applicants shall state, in this application, the names of the actual bee-
keepers of the precinct, so far as known to them.

Sec, 2. The person so appointed shall, within five days after his ap-
pointment, file with the clerk of such board, his written acceptance of the
office, and the usual oath of office; or, in the default thereof, the board
shall, in the same manner, make new appointments until the said office is
filled. The inspector shall hold his office during the pleasure of the board
and until his successor is appointed and qualified.

Sec, 3. Every bee-keeper or other person who shall be aware of the
existence of foul brood, either in his own apiary or elsewhere, shall imme-
diately notify the inspector of bees, if there be one, of the existence of
such disease, and in default of so doing shall, on summary conviction be-
fore a justice of the peace, be liable to a fine of five dollars and costs.

Sec. 4. On receiving notice from any source of the existence, in any
apiary in his precinct, of the disease known as foul brood, or any other
infectious or contagious disease of bees, the inspector of bees shall forth-
with inspect each colony of bees and all hives, implements and apparatus,
honey and supplies on hand or used in connection with such apiary, or
otherwise distinctly designate each colony and apiary which he believes
infected, and notify the owner or person in charge of said bees thereof,
in writing or otherwise, and the owners of Said bees, or the person in
charge thereof, in writing or otherwise, and the owners of said bees, or
the person in charge thereof, shall, within five days thereafter, practically
and in good faith, apply and thereafter fully and effectually carry out to
and upon said diseased colonies, such treatment as may have been pre-
scribed by the inspector for such cases; also thoroughly disinfect to the
satisfaction of such inspector all hives, bee-Houses, combs, honey and
apparatus that have been used in connection with any such diseased col-
onies; or, at his election, the said owner or person in charge of such bees
may, within the same time, utterly and completely destroy said bees,
house, comb honey, honey and apparatus, by fire, or bury the same in the
ground, with a covering of not less than two feet of earth.

Sec. 5. After inspecting infected hives or fixtures, or handling dis-
eased bees, the inspector shall, before leaving the premises or proceed:
ing to any other apiary, thoroughly disinfect his own person and cloth-
ing, and shall see that any assistant or assistants with him have also
thoroughly disinfected their person and clothing.

Sec. 6. The inspector shall have full power, in his’ discretion, to order

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 49

any owner or possessor of bees dwelling in box hives in apiaries where
the disease exists (being mere boxes without frames) to transfer such
bees to movable-frame hives within a specific time, and in default of such
transfer, the inspector may destroy or order the destruction of such box
hives and the bees dwelling therein. :

Sec. 7. Should the owner or possessor of diseased colonies of bees,
or any portion of said colonies, be they queens or workers, or of any
affected appliances of bee-keeping, knowingly sell or barter, or give away,
or move or allow to be moved, such diseased colonies or portion of col-
onies, or infected appliances, he shall, on convictinn before any justice of
the peace, be liable to a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more
than one hundred dollars $100), or to imprisonment in the county jail for
any term not exceeding two months,

Sec. 8. Should any person whose bees have been destroyed or treated
for foul brood sell, or offer for sale, any bees, hives or appurtenances of
any kind, after such destruction or treatment, and before authorized by
the jnspector to do so, or should he expose, in his bee-yard or elsewhere,
any infected comb honey, or other infected thing, or conceal the fact that
such disease exists among his bees, he shall, on conviction before a jus-
tice of the peace, be liable to a fine of not less than twenty dollars ($20)
nor more than fifty dollars ($50), or to imprisonment in the county jail
for a term not exceeding two months and not less than one month.

Sec, 9. When an owner or possessor of bees shall disobey the direc-
tions of the said inspector, a justice of the peace may, upon the complaint
of the said inspector, cause a sufficient number of special constables to
be sworn in and such special constables shall proceed to such owner or
possessor and assist the inspector to seize all diseased colonies and affect-
ed appurtenances, and burn them forthwith; and, if necessary, the said
constables may arrest the said owner or possessor and bring him before
a justice of the peace to be dealt with according to the provisions of the
proceeding section of this act.

Sec. 10. Before proceeding against any person before any justice of
the peace, the said inspectcr shall read over to Such person the provisions
of this act or shall cause a copy thereof to be delivered to such person.

Sec. 11. The said inspecter shall include in his annual report to the
board a statement of his work during the preceding year, which state-
ment shall include: First, the number of colonies inspected; second, thc
number of colonies diseased; third, the number of colonies destroyed by
fire or otherwise; fourth, the names of the owners and the localities where
found; fifth, the amount paid him for his service, and expenses for the
preceding year.

Sec. 12. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act are here.
by repealed,

Sec. 13. In the opinion of the Legislative Assembly an emergency
exists and this act shall take effect from and after its passage.

SOUTH DAKOTA.
CHAPTER 221.
(S. B. 134)

AN ACT Entitled: An Act to Prevent Disease Among Bees, and to Pro
vide for the Inspection Thereof.

50 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota:

Section 1. That for the purpose of this act state shall be divided into
two districts. All that part of the state lying east of the Missouri river
shall be known as District No. 1, and all that portion of the state lying
west of said river shall be known as District No. 2. On petition of-ten or
more bee-keepers, residents therein, the governor shall appoint for each
district an inspector of bees, who shall hold his office for a term of two
years, or until his successor is appointed and qualified; and said inspector
shall have the power to appoint a deputy.

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of such inspector, when notified in writ-
ing by at least three bee-keepers in any locality, of the existence, or
suspected existence, of the disease known as foul brood among the apiaries
of such locality, to at once thoroughly examine such aparies as are re-
ported to be diseased, and all other apiaries in the same locality, and thus
ascertain whether such disease exists. If the bees in any apiary are in
such place or condition as to prevent a thorough examination by the in-
spector, he may order the same to be put into a proper place or condition
for such examination. If such order is not complied with, and the in-
spector has reason for believing such bees to be diseased, he may cause
them to be destroyed. If upon examination the inspector is satisfied of
the existence of such disease, he shall give the owner or person in charge
of such apiary full instructions as to the manner of treating the same.
Within a reasonable time after such examination the inspector shall, with-
out other notice, make further examination of such .apiaries ,and if the
condition of any of them is such as his judgment renders it necessary, he
may burn, or cause to be burned, all the infected colonies of bees in any
apiary, together with all the combs and~hives in order to prevent the fur-
ther spread of the disease.

Sec. 3. The inspector shall make a yearly report to the governor stat-
ing the number of apiaries visited, the number of these diseased and treat- |
ed, and the number of colonies of bees destroyed. Such report shall also
show the expense incurred by the inspector while in the discharge of his
duties, under the provisions of this act.

Sec. 4. Any one who knowingly sells, barters, or gives away, moves
or allows to be moved, a diseased colony or colonies of bees, be they
queen or workers; or infected appliances; or who exposes any infected
honey to bees without the consent of the inspector, shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor and be liable, on conviction before any justice of the
peace of the county, to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars, not more
than one hundred dollars, or to imprisonment in the county jail not exceed-
ing thirty days. E

Sec. 6. Any owner or possessor of bees who disobeys the direction of
the inspector, or offers resistance to, or obstructs said inspector in the
performance of his duty, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, on
conviction thereof before any justice of the peace of the county, shall be
fined not exceeding the sum of fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding thirty days.

Sec. 7. Such inspector shall receive as compensation the sum of three
dollars per day for each day actually and necessarily employed in the dis-
charge of his duty as herein provided, together with his expenses actually
and necessarily incurred while so employed; provided, that the amount to
be paid on account of such expenses shall in no event exceed the sum of
three hundred dollars for any one year,

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 5]

Sec, 8. For the purposes of a fund to aid in the inspection of bees
in this state, and to prevent disease among bees as in this act provided,
every apiarist or owner of bees shall pay a tax of ten cents for each col-
ony of bees owned by him in said county on the first day of May of each
year, . :
Sec. 9. An emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this act shall
be in force and effect from and after its passage and approval.

Approved March 5, 1909.

CANADA.
BILL.
(No. 228. 1906).

AN ACT for the Suppression of Foul Brood Among Bees.

His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative
Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

Section 1. Short Title—This act may be known as “The Foul Brood
Met.”

Sec, 2. Appointment of Inspector of Apiaries—The lieutenant-gov-
erner in council upon the recommendation of the minister of agriculture
may from time to time appoint one or more inspectors of apiaries to en-
force this act, and the inspector shall, if so required, produce the certitf-
icate of his appointment on entering upon any premises in the discharge
of his duties. And the minister shall instruct and control each inspector
‘in the carrying out of the provisions of this act. The remuneration to be
paid to any inspector under this act shall be determined by order of the
lieutenant-governor in council.

(In 1909 fourteen inspectors were appointed, for 24 days each, between
May 15 and August 15.)

See. 3. Duties of Inspectors.—The inspector shall, whenever so direct-
ed by the minister of agriculture, visit without necessary delay any local.
ity in the Province of Ontario and there examine any apiary or apiaries to
which the said minister may direct him, and ascertain whether or not the
disease known as foul brood exists in such apiary or apiaries, and wher-
ever the said inspector is satisfied of the existence of foul brood in its
virulent or malignant type, it shall be the duty of the inspector to order
all colonies so affected, together with the hives occupied by them, and the
contents of such hives, and all tainted appurtenances that cannot be dis-
infected, to be immediately destroyed by fire under the personal direc-
tion and superintendence of the said inspector; but where the inspector,
who shall be the sole judge thereof, is satisfied that the disease exists,
but only in milder types and in its incipient stages, and is being or may
be treated successfully, and the inspector has reason to believe that it
may be entirely cured, then the inspector may, in his discretion, omit to
destroy or order the destruction of the colonies and hives in which the
disease exists. 53 V., c. 66, Ss. 3.

Sec. 4. Box-hives.—The inspector shall have full power, in his discre-
tion, to order any owner or possessor of bees dwelling in box-hives, in
apiaries where the disease exists (being mere boxes without frames), to
transfer such bees to movable-frame hives within a specified time, and in
default of such transfer, the inspector may destroy, or order the destruc-
tion of, such box-hives and the bees dwelling therein. 53 V., c. 66, s. 4.

52 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

Sec. 5. Penalty for Disposing of Infected Bees or Appliances.—Any
owner or possessor of diseased colonies of bees, or of any infected ap-
pliances for bee-keeping, who knowingly sells or barters or gives away
such diseased colonies or infected appliances shall, on conviction thereof
before any justice of the peace, be liable to a fine of not less. than $50 or
more than $100, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two
months. 53 V., c. 66, s. 5.

Sec. 6. Selling Bees after Treatment, or Exposing Infected Appliances.
—Any person whose bees have been destroyed or treated for foul brood,
who sells or offers for sale any bees, hives or appurtenances of any kind,
after such destruction or treatment, and before being authorized by the
inspector so to Go, or who exposes in his bee-yard, or elsewhere, any in-
fected comb honey, or other infected thing, or conceals the fact that said
disease exists among his bees, shall, on conviction before a justice of the
peace, “be liable to a fine of not less than $20 and not more than $50, or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months and not less than one
month. 53 V., c. 66, s. 6.

Sec. 7. Penalty for Obstructing Inspector.—Any owner or possessor
of bees who refuses to allow the inspector to freely examine said bees or
the premises in which they are kept, or who refuses to destroy the in-
fected bees and appurtenances, or to permit them to be destroyed when
so directed by the inspector, may, on the complaint of the inspector, be
summoned before a justice of the peace, and, on conviction, shall be liable
to a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $50 for the first offense,
and not less than $50 and not more than $100 for the second and any sub-
sequent offense, and the said justice of the peace shall make an order
directing the said owner and possessor forthwith to carry out the direc-
tions of the inspector. 53 V., c. 66, s. 7.

Sec. 8. Special Constables may be Sworn in to Assist Inspector.—
Where an owner or possessor of bees disobeys the directions of the said.
inspector, or offers resistance to, or obstructs said inspector, a justice of
the peace may, upon the complaint of the said inspector, cause a sufficient.
number of special constables to be Sworn in, and such special constables
shall, under the directions of the inspector, proceed to the premises of
such owner or possesor and assist the inspector to seize all the diseased
colonies and infected appurtenances and burn them forthwith, and, if nec-
essary, the said inspector or constables may arrest the said owner or
possessor and bring him before a justice of the peace to be dealt with
according to the provisions of the preceding section of this act. 53 V., c.
66, s. 8.

Sec. 9. Inspector to Inform Offender of Provisions of Act.—Before pro-
ceeding against any person before a justice of the peace, the said inspector
shall read over to such person the provisions of this act or shall cause a
copy thereof to be deliverd to such person. 53 V., c. 66, s. 9.

Sec. 10. Person Aware of Disease to Notify Minister—Every bee-
keeper or other person who is aware of the existence of foul brood, either
in his own apiary or elsewhere shall immediately notify the minister of
the existence of such disease, and in default of so doing shall on sum-
mary conviction before a justice of the peace be liable to a fine of $5 and
costs. 53 V., c. 66, s. 10.

Gal. 11. Inspectors to Report to Minister.—Each inspector shall re-
port to the minister as to the inspection of any apiary in such form and
manner as the minister may direct, and all reports shall be filed in the

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 53

department of agriculture, and shall be made public as the minister may
direct or upon order of the legislative assembly.

WASHINGTON.

(No. 119).

Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:

Section 1. Whenever a petition is presented to the board of county
commissioners of any county, signed by ten or more persons, each of whom
is a property holder resident of the county, and possesor of an apiary or
place where bees are kept, stating that certain or all apiaries within the
county are infected with the disease known as foul brood, or any other
disease which is infectious or contagious in its nature, and injurious to
the bees, their eggs or larvae, and praying that an inspector by them,
whose duty it shall be to supervise the treatment of said bees and apiaries
as herein provided, the board of county commissioners shall, within twenty
days thereafter, appoint a suitable person, who shall be a skilled bee-
keeper, inspeetor of apiaries. The said board of county commissioners
may remove said inspector at any time for cause.

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the inspector in each county to cause
an inspection to be made, when he deems it necessary, of any or every
apiary, or other place within his jurisdiction in which bees are kept, and
if found infected with foul brood, or any infectious or contagious disease
injurious to the bees, or their eggs or larvae, he shall notify the owner
or owners, person or persons in charge, or in possession of said apiaries
or places where bees are kept, that the same are infected with foul brood,
or any other disease infectious or contagious in its nature, ond injurious
to bees, their eggs or larvae, and he shall require such person or persons
to eradicate such disease or cause of contagion within a certain time to
be specified. Said notice may be served upon the person or persons, or
either of them, owning or having charge, or having possession of such in-
fected apiaries, or places where bees are kept, by an inspector, or by any
person deputized by the said inspector for that purpose, or they may be
served in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. Any and all
such apiaries, or places where bees are kept, found infected with foui
brood, or any other infectious or contagious disease, are hereby adjudged
and declared to be a public nuisance; and when ever any such nuisance
exist at any place within his jurisdiction, or on the property of any non-
resident, or cn any property the owner or owners of which cannot be
found by the inspector, after diligent search, within the county, or upon
the property of any owner or owners upon whom notice aforesaid has
been served, and who shall refuse or neglect to abate the same within
the time specified, it shall be the duty of the inspector to abate the same,
either by treating the disease, or by destroying the infected hives, to-
gether with their combs and bees therein. The expense thereof shall be
a county charge and the board of county commissioners shall allow and
pay the same out of the genral fund of the county.

Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the county inspector of apiaries to
keep a record of his official acts and doings, and make report thereof to
the board of county commissioners when required by said board.

Sec. 4. The salary of the county inspector of apiaries shall be three
dollars per day when actually engaged in the performance of his duties;

54 BERE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

provided, that the expenditures under this act in any county shall not
exceed the sum of one hundred dollars per annum,

Sec. 5. The inspector of apiaries may, in his discretion, order the
Owner, or owners, or other person in charge of bees kept in box or other
immovable or stationary comb-hives in apiaries infected with foul brood
or other infectious or contagious disease, or within a radius of three miles
of such diseased apiaries, to transfer such bees to movable-frame hives
within a reasonable time, to be specified in such order or notice, and in
default of such transfer the owner,-or owners, or other persons in charge
of such bees, the inspector may destroy, or cause to be destroyed, all such
hives, together with their contents, and the expense thereof shall be a
county charge, as provided in section two of this act,

Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person owning or controlling bees
within this, which are known to be infected with foul brood or other in:
fectious or contagious disease, to remove said bees to a new location, with-
out first giving ten days’ notice to the county inspector of apiaries, stat-
ing when and where he intends moving said bees. Any person violating
the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

Sec. 7. Any person or persons whose apiary is infected with foul
brood or any other infectious or contagious disease, and who sells, or offers
for sale, from such infected apiary any bees, hives, bee fixtures or appur-
tenances, or who shall expose in his bee yard or elsewhere, any infected
comb-honey, bees wax, or other infected thing, or who conceals the fact
that his apiary is so infected, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

Sec. 8. Any person or persons who shall resist, impede, or hinder in
any way, the inspector of apiaries in the discharge of his duties under the .
provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a*’misdemeanor.

Sec. 9. An emergency exists and this act shall take effect imme-
diately.

_ February 1, 1905.

INDIANA BILL.
(No. 144),

Section 4. The state entomologist shall be and is hereby constituted
state inspector of apiaries and as such inspector it shall be his duty to
aid and assist in the development and protection of the bee and honey
industry in this state and to adopt and carry out proper measures for the
prevention and suppression of contagious and infectious diseases among
bees.

See, 5. The state entomologist shall have full power and authority
at his discretion to visit and examine any apiaries for the purpose of dis-
covering whether or not any disease may exist among bees in any part
of the state. When notified of the existence or the probable existence of
foul brood or other contagious or infectious diseases among bees in any
apiary in the state he shall visit and examine said apiary so reported and
all other apiaries in the same neighborhcod that he may be informed about
by diligent inquiry or otherwise, for the purpose of determining whether
such. disease exists or not. Whenever he shall be satisfied of the exist--
ence of foul brood or other diseases in their malignant form in any apiary
it shall be his duty to order all colonies so affected, together with all
hives occupied by them, and the contents of those hives and all tainted
appurtenances that cannot be disinfected and that might cause the fur-

National Bee-Keepers Association

—— INFORMATION BUREAU No. 15, APRIL 1, 1910 —_
GREAT DEMAND FOR HONEY

I have devoted much time to why so many complain of no market
for honey. I have asked fifteen wholesale dealers, why honey sales were
Slow when other foods were ready sale at high prices. Also asked bee-
keepers who buy tons of honey besides their own for bottling and also
aSked many who used to be extensive honey eaters why they have dropped
it from their daily food. Almost every one replies with this answer.

Good well ripened honey, sealed by the bees and matured in the
hives is always in demand, at fair prices. But this thin stuff extracted
before it is ready—before it is well ripened-that will sour-that never has
either flavor or bodysthat is what spoils market for honey. Through In-
formation bureau I had many offers of honey tosellsent me. Several] such
lots I found sales for and later got word from purchasers the thin honey
had no body or flavor, except souring.

If every National Bee- keepers Association member will promise me
ALL HIS HONEY WILL BE RIPE, CAPPED OVER HONEY, vdefore it
leaves his hives he will have a market he never can Supply.

Our Association never can brand its members honey until this is

done,
Ce eA RAEN ADDER VND HE Vb
——To Sell Also To Buy—-~
I keep a full list of parties who wish to sell honey, or bees or fix-
tures another list of those wishing to buy same. Also parties who want
to hire out to some beekeeper-or parties wanting help in apiary. This
INFORMATION BUREAU is valuable as members use it, and costs
members nothing for reply as to above. No published lists mailed to all
members as it would cost $75. each mailing of same.
Please read 1909 report-page 46-47 and 80-81 two valuable articles.
I hope by time members get a honey harvest ready for market to be
able to have new patterns of honey labels special to members.
SSUES ARTES.
Special Prices to Paid up Members:—
TIN CANS and PAILS

Your No. & Cash with each or- { 447 west 14th st. New York N. Y.
der to AMERICAN CAN Co. at J 135 Adams st. Chicago, Il.
any of the following addresses ( San Francisco, California.

SQUARE Cans with 12 screw. F. O. B. Maywood Ill., or Cleveland Ohio.
5 gal. in crates of 50 at 2lce each or $11.25 per crate San Francisco.
» gal. in boxes of one each 34¢ box.
5 gal. in boxes of two each 60c box or 75¢ box San Francisco.
ROUND 5 gal. round, removable wood jackets, raised head with 3 inch
Screw in center, that drains entire contents, bail handle, 40c¢ each
or 373 in lots of 100. The can as received is ready for filling also
ready to ship long distance with honey. I use no other. Try them.
0 gal. round can 3 inch screw, wire link handle, jacket not remov-
able 30c each. — F
FRICTION TOP CANS and PAILS—Maywood, Ill.
2 lb, cans at $2.25 per hundred. 24 1b. at $2.75, 3 1b. at $3.00
) lb. pail at $5.00 per 100 10 1b. at $7.00
FLARING LARD PAIL—Chicago, Ill.
3 lb. at $4.00 per 100. 51b at $5.00. 10 lb. at $7.50
Yours Truly
N. E. FRANCH.

___ DON’T BUY SECOND HAND CANS FOR HONEY. WILL NOT PAY
_ TOUSE THEM. —

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 55

ther spread of the disease to be immediately destroyed by fire under his
personal supervision and care, but where said entomologist, who shall be
the sole judge thereof, shall be satisfied that the disease exists in incip-
ient stages, and is being or may be treated successfully, and he shall have
reason to believe that it may be entirely cured, then he may in his discre-
tion omit to destroy or order the destruction of the colonies or hives in
which the disease exists.

Whenever the disease shall be found to exist and the treatment for
the same shall be ordered by the state entomologist, he shall give to the
owner or person in charge of the apiary instructions as to the manner of
treatment of such apiary, and to see that such treatment be carried out,
and should the said owner or person in charge of said apiary refuse or
fail to carry out the said instructions to the complete satisfaction of the
state entomologist, he shall destroy or order to be destroyed all said dis-
eased colonies by fire as provided for in case of disease in its malignant
form.

Sec. 6. The state entomologist shall have full power in his discretion
to order any owner, possessor, or person having charge of bees dwelling
in box hives (having mere boxes without frames), in apiaries where dis-
ease exists, to transfer such bees to movable frame hives, within a spec-
ified time, and in default of such transfer he shall order destroyed or
destroy all such box hives and the bees dwelling therein.

See. 7. The said state entomologist shall have the right to enter for
the performance of his duties upon any premiises where bees are kept.

Sec. 8. The state entomologist shall include in his annual report to
the governor such information in regard to the work of the apiary in-
spector and bee culture as he may deem of importance to the state.

Sec. 9. Any owner of any apiary where disease exists or any person
or persons, company or corporation who shall sell, barter or give away, or
import into this state any colonies or colony of bees or appliances infected
with disease, or expose to the danger of other bees any comb, honey, bee
hives or appliances or things infected with the disease, or conceal the faci.
that disease exists among his or their bees when disease is known to ex-
ist, or refuses to allow the state entomologist to inspect or treat any
apiary or appliances or shall resist hinder or impede him in any way in
the discharge of his duties under the provisions of this act, shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less
than ten ($10) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25).

Sec. 10. Every bee-keeper or other person who is aware of the exist-
ence of foul brood or other infectious or contagious diseases either in his
own apiary or elsewhere, shall immediately notify the state entomologist
of the existence of such disease, and in default of so doing shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not more
than ten dollars ($10).

See. 11. Apiaries within the meaning of this act shall be any place
where one or more hives, swarm, or colonies of bees shall be kept.

Sec. 12. Whenever as the result of an official inspection, the state
entomologist or any of his deputies shall order the treatment or removal
of any trees, vines, shrubs or plants, or shall order the treatment or
destruction of any bee hives, frames or other appurtenances connected
with apiculture he may require that an affidavit shall be filed by the own-
er or person in charge of the property so affected in which it shall be
stated that the treatment ordered has been carried out to the best of the

56 | BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

affiant’s ability, and that the work had been effective for the purpose pre-
scribed. Any person making any such affidavit, knowing the same to be
false, shall be guilty of perjury.

Sec. 138. The state entomologist shall have the nuehoeie to employ
such deputies and assistants as the work of the office may require. They
shall hold office for such periods of time as the work cf the office may re-
quire and in their appointment the state entomologist shall consider only
their fitness for the work which they will undertake, disregarding entirely
all political affiliations. The salary of no deputy shall exceed twelve hun-
dred dollars ($1200) per annum. The inspector of apiaries shall receive
for his services the sum of one thousand dollars $1000) per annum in addi-
tion to his salary as state entomologist. Such compensation to be paid
out of the general appropriation for this act.

Sec, 14. Whera an emergency exists for the immediate taking effect
of this act it shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
March 12, 1909.

NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS’ ASSOCIATION 57

2 GENERAL MANAGER N. E, FRANCE.
——_—-———__ =

The American Bee Journal for February, in giving the new officers of
the National Bee-Keepers’ Association for 1910, has the following sketch
of the general manager, N. E. France:

“The subject of this sketch was born July 24, 1857, on the wild prairies
of Iowa, having Indians as neighbors. In 1862 his parents moved to Platte-
ville, Wis., riding all the distance of 230 miles in the fashionable ‘auto-
mobiles’ of the time—a covered wagon and ox team—with a cow tied be-
hind the wagon. .

“Ror some years his father, E. France, had bees in boxes, and by 1857
had succeeded in having all straight combs by the use of melted wax om
the underside of the frames without any bottom bars. Later, Langstroth:
used a frame of wood on all sides.

“In 1865 to 1885 ‘N. E.’ went to
school fall and winter, and was at
home during the summer on a fruit
and bee farm. In 1875 he owned his
first six colonies of bees, which
gathered a good honey crop, and in
the fall filled the hives with honey
dew for winter stores. The next
spring the bees were all dead, but
the bee-keeper’s hopes were not
frosted. He bought more bees, built
up an apiary, and by the fall of 1877
had 75 colonies. He heard of a ma-
chine to take the honey out of the
comb and save the comb. He drove
forty miles, besides going some miles
by railroad, to see the first honey-
extractor. The whole can and sta-
tionary inside fixtures turned. In
1878: he extracted 5,120 pounds of
honey, and as it was work in those
days to take the honey from the
combs, it sold for 30 cents per pound,
5 cents more than comb honey.

“Since that time Mr. France has harvested 30,000 to 50,000 pounds of
honey in a single season. In each of three years he sold a carload. in one:
sale. For a number of years he has employed students attending the-
Normal School at Platteville, to help in caring for his several apiaries.

“Mr. France has held a number of public positions in bee-keeping as
well as in public schools, ete. He served as secretary for two years;
and as president for four years, of the Southwestern Wisconsin Bee-Keep-
ers’ Association; for seven years aS general manager of the National As-
sociation; and for 13 years as Wisconsin State Inspector of Apiaries. In
the last two positions he is still serving,

“Mr. France was principal of the same school for ten years and for
six years was a student in the State Normal School located at Platteville.
For four years he was Deputy United States mail carrier, and was super-

58 BEE-KEEPERS’ LEGAL RIGHTS

intendent of the bee and honey display at the Chicago Pure Food Show,
in which the National Association won the highest award. -

“There is probably not another man who has done more in a general
or public way for bee-keeping than has Mr. France; and he has done it all
at much sacrifice, and so unselfishly. -The general managership of the
National Association means a great deal of work, and for very small pay.
But Mr. France has done it all because his big heart was in it.

“At the Harrisburg convention of the National Association, in 1907,
a gold watch was presented to Mr, France, and a set of silver spoons to
Mrs. France, all of which was only a slight token of the esteem in which

Mr. France and his good wife are held by the bee-keepers of America.”

Members of the National Bee-Keepers’ Association must not assume
any obligations expecting the Association to reimburse them, without first
getting advice and consent of the General Manager.

fo.

i a

(oT Par =

a

Page
ws LITEILIEE Oe SESS BESS ie 0 Se al ee er ee 38 to 40
RS pie ERE TEC Se NAMES ns ws, a ese eid welche cbs Cece wemabe sae es 2
Pie Mitel eA IEE, (OFS ok cc ae 0 0 wie vcs a ve oa 0s oe ee cn oe ake rag
2 EES EEG STDS TT Sa oes ae a, ere fs
LE EES, DUG RET SS ee ea Aaa ORE eee 28
aaa Ol EON AEN WET E eo) hn eo apa a, os, ta nid isles oon aa oy wien co be aewe bed 19 to 38
ee Ee A Pee ee nce es ee Soak a edie id gage Cbre oa Sng eee 3
ae ee LSE TLOES ols sc. o ss)ag ica Ss book 6 Gag ov aon ec vc cu SleSerak 20-25
SE EES CUTE BUSS CN ge ANI et rae ee eg cn a 23
Pee eM PEM OOTN, 50) 2052. Bec c-n cles cwle dabei cncccaceccowcs 23
PEEL FG SL Se) Seo Nee Re ie hes De ee Pr nee See ee 25
(LEY GE BES SSD Pat eA Ais Per iene ge 3
LUT LES Ser SST Dy Cs Sa ae a ‘ton ts
DELLE Bol LE ETRE Tae PE yi PR oO A 29
= LELEESS 22) Son J Re cn ee 9
we DET STRIDE SEIS AP opt eee Ue LE
Beem {rom PexeCution 2... .i6...e.c.0: ade ah 2) cit arcane te MPa aces eniegeor ae 11
ae eee ME ETESMG GE) ENCES... yi eal). «isos vide wl ede ee ch ec ca okcua 6
eat RN AMI oars Sr Pe oy co Sesolg, 60 a we Ke eee ee de 6

Injury to Person—Property
eee mE Sty esa eee a ee Ne Sire oie BU SS oe Seb ech ao cout 34 to 38
Poison to Destroy Bees

AS ATnABS. SSeS ans pee pan RA Nhe) a AE ge dil

TLE DE SD Ss ag a 30 to 33

ane MORE MINMI TC PUTEMONO MOR 2 Pies ts i coe eae bwin Me wee ence wees we 24

Ppeeentae eMC PATI IC. PibG i on ais aie te oso eenieles we GS bod wns ieee Ooms 26

eee aN —— ALO ag Bc bacco ab Ro Sele weds ove eee as oes tod

Pe Sn Selina VORCY 2.5 6232s sso eaw odes cons co bsa eke sees 18-19

Se PES _EIPSE CEE BCU pS AS a a ee i ae eee ay ny 8 Oe Ie Renee Stee 12

epee ROME CS——-FOMMCEY so. jca.d.05 0. « so tein cis S'e ks Wiel os ba Wee a sees 3

i rt ATE ey ene iS aS, RD es las oe anna Wee eee 18

iam tana MAE ECCS) Se Soy nck. vied wx os + Guo Selig Wieland 6 wee eanielia elena 7

NEEL Pa Mae ee ha ts asl ho i's ou. aS a aul Biel St ayS shan Ure bios 0) oe > tOn9

WORE ECP GEST ESE NS VAL Eig 18 Re age tees mee 22

OR Mer eaetra cae RE aoe oon aio ole\ wictcln nina oi aes 84 ec acinwie eos alee Eas 7

ee ea NOS MRA Ng or, se NS. 'opd coca Rd Sore Saws w dle e SO RS Ee wo ele ecw pe em 2
Foul Brood Laws—

PONS te CONE SAE ane ge ete os hx ore 6 Vitae RR vac enelaoe yw pre UM Tweed 40

oe ie D cae Un Arias Pa hn art citer e Sw nef des a iignarer eo simirate hee aoe 0 acs 41

Ce NRE Oe see a get See esata: Bin, Ao oe as he NOeL ae, ale ereherenn 6.6 Shared p 4)

ORE oan ee ioe tare, oe. OG ahs 8 a) wna) eae Soe aie oe ae es ae eS 42

MAN eS Pek ee, oS ae eicing th apelin e eSNG see erates, 2S eels 44

MOUNT ey ais Co, we Pais aciey, ale ee aay “Ul wee? a S's up on Diacerea We & BIE eel tela « 45

Tm ETaL Sa a a A a EE ce ahs oh lea o Bie ee adele o 46

CED ULL i Seees ih jan a Oni I oir AR ae Bete ee a ee Ee 47

Teen Gn cep re Cah ce athe wala df avila Rene wee we was 28 = SS

RS OREa eae Pee UNCON olen nt es as at rS sc! gh Gielen alas see aim edalte S sib o sted 49

a CARTAN S ao Bae xin Sa meas < Hit egies Seiseae ae wee « Re eae oe 51

Peed CORRELL OMNNTE rays Seer ies ore tne ce GM, ha hoe etl cl gat ete ela eIee ae eis due a ete 53

GRE A eee tetas, oa he eh Sal ea SNS ata aie elo ieee & Se ace wine 54

PO Mi MT a SI a EY she PN: SS ORY 0 IF

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

002 841 761 5

Sh AS