ard size of sections and standard shipping cases. No product subject to variation in weight, flavor, color, etc., can be satisfactorily placed in a distant market, unless well defined rules for grading and packing said commodity are first adopted, then strictly carried out, and most important of all, a line of customers secured who have confidence in the parties offering the goods, that the goods will come up to representation.

All of these subjects were carefully gone over by this little band of beekeepers, and the decision was that first a set of grading rules should be drawn up and later submitted to the Colorado State Beekeepers' Association for adoption; second, that those present would agree to grade by these rules; third, that as soon as possible they would all adopt the 44x44x1% sections and the double-tier glass front shipping cases as their standard; fourth, to appoint a secretary to develop a carload market for their product. To start the ball rolling each of those present contributed the big sum of 25 cents for stationary and postage stamps. The writer was elected secretary, without pay, and instructed to go ahead.

A buyer for a carload was found in a comparatively short time at $2.40 per case for No. 1, and as local buyers only offered $1.75 for the same grade everybody was highly elated. Th secretary made all the arrangements for the loading, and each producer hauled his. honey direct to the car where it was inspected, and each one lent a hand in loading. Within a few weeks after this car had arrived at destination the same party wired for another car. As there was not enough to make a car, others were invited to come in and fill the order.

The following season a store room was rented. This was kept open one day each week during the shipping season to receive honey until carload shipments could be made. The next year steps were taken to incorporate under the laws of the State of Colorado. To comply with the statutes a stock company had to be formed. The capitalization was originally fixed at $10,000; shares of stock $10 each, to be sold to beekeepers only.

After some stock had been sold, it was decided to establish a warehouse, carry a complete stock of bee supplies and also supply the local honey market. The secretary was appointed as manager with a small salary.

The policy was adopted of handling bee supplies of highest quality only and selling them at a small margin of profit, not only to members but to all comers, giving the small beginner the same opportunity in buying as the large specialist.

The handling of honey was done on the following basis: Honey received at the association warehouse was stored there, insurance carried on it, local sales made out of such stock, and carload shipments were filled; the association doing all the work and charging 10 percent of the selling price. Carload shipments from the outside points were handled in the following manner: Members at such points would store their honey themselves, carry insurance on it, haul it to the

car to be loaded when ordered to do so and bear all expenses of loading; the manager of the association doing the inspecting of each lot at the car door and supervising the loading, such shipments being handled by the association on 5 percent of the selling price.

To identify each member's honey consignment, numbers are used to stamp on each end of a case of honey immediately above the hand hole, the mark designating the grade is made with lead pencil in each hand hole. (Since the federal net weight law is in force, a somewhat different form of marking was adopted.)

The inspection problem is a difficult one, and has some very unpleasant features to the party entrusted with the enforcement of the rules. It is evident that of the number who are anxious to do a good job of grading and packing, there is quite a percentage who for one reason or the other do not succeed at first. Many of these will conquer the subject after a while, but there is now and then a hopeless case. Central grading stations at the various shipping points, managed by an impartial grader, appear to be the best solution of this problem.

Settlement for carload shipments is made with the members as soon as re.

turns are in. All records are made in duplicate, and each member receives an exact copy of his ledger account. At the end of the year, after inventory is taken, any surplus left, after the dividend on the stock has been declared, is divided among the members that have sold honey through the association, according to the amount of commission paid by them. Taking a series of years, including some very light crops, it has cost our members less than 3 percent to market their crop through the association. The prices obtained are better than those obtained by individuals in nearly all cases. It is proven by the unsolicited increase in membership and the larger amount of honey handled.

Members are not compelled to sell their crop through the association, neither are they compelled to buy their supplies of the association, the utmost liberty is allowed each individual, except that, after having reported their crop to be sold through the association, they should do so. The great benefits of co-operative buying and cooperative selling have been fully discussed, in the past few years, by the press of this country, and it is unnecessary to take up the space here. We have shown in the above that beekeepers can and should avail themselves of the advantages to better their condition.

were two solid frames of drone-brood, capped from top to bottom bar on both sides of each frame. Some neighbors were reporting the presence of drawn queen-cells before the end of February.

Bees consumed less winter stores during the past season than usual. Many beekeepers report having actually more honey in the hives now than when put into winter quarters. At our Loma Linda apiary in Bexar county we found empty shallow supers put on 34 colonies in October to be filled with capped honey on visiting them last week. This apiary is located in an irrigated farm district, and its condition shows that our bees worked practically all winter. The source of this winter honey was apparently broomweed and other varieties of ground flowers growing along the irrigation

laterals.

The beekeeping industry in Texas is receiving a great impetus from the agitation of the cotton reduction idea. The farmers whose sole dependence for a cash crop has been the fleecy staple, are facing the necessity of finding some other salable product, and many of them are inquiring about honey production with earnestness. As a matter of fact, the honey producing possibilities of Texas have hardly been touched, and a marked increase in number of colonies operated and men interested will develop from the present situation.

Beekeepers in States farther North who care to try the experiment of buying bees from Texas to be shipped just at the beginning of their honey-flow will have ideal conditions this spring. On account of the open and early season every well cared for south Texas apiary will be overstocked with bees when our first flow has been harvested and these willing workers could be made available.

Should any reader be interested in any question pertaining to Texas beekeeping or to conditions in the southwest, we will be glad to reply through the columns of the American Bee Journal.

San Antonio, Tex. March 5.

ON

House Apiaries

BY R. F. HOLTERMANN.

N page 45, I notice a letter by Mr. H. Spuhler, of Zurich, Switzerland, upon the subject of "House Apiaries." I read with a good deal of interest European apicultural literature and have done so with profit to myself. I rather agree with the view that in America the house apiary is not the proper thing, if the apiary is conducted on a scale large enough to make a business of it. I have twice had a house apiary. I built a bee house and cellar, the buildings alone costing me over $1000, and arranged the walls so as to leave an outlet for 50 colonies, but when it came to the practical application I did not have the faith to carry it out. True, the angry bees are often bees that do not belong to the hive we are examining, but quite often they are. If the latter were not the case, then "peppery," irritable colonies would be unknown to us, and every beekeeper worthy of the name knows that he has colonies much more difficult to handle, without being strong, than others.

I however admit that an enclosed place appears to take much of the fight out of them. Here in America, including Canada, to use gloves for handling bees is a rare thing. I have been connected with beekeeping now over 30 years, and have seen a good deal of beekeeping, and during my travels or at home have very rarely seen gloves used in the apiary. They have never been used in my apiaries as far as I know-a lady from England who spent a summer with me had always used them in that land, but I would not relent and allow her to use them. I understood she felt like quitting, but she afterwards thanked me for my persistence. Then a young man from Canada told me afterwards, when he found he would have to work among the bees without gloves, he almost decided to go home. He too, decided I was right.

To work upon the floor upon which the hives are standing, or to have their floor connected with the working floor disturbs them, and I do not want to do this.

THE LEAF HIVE.

As to the leaf hive, I have had them, have some empty now. I feel quite sure that I cannot manipulate frames as rapidly by that method as from above. When it comes to the system of extracting during the honey flow from combs capped, leaving those partly filled behind; with my flow I do not want to adopt that system. I let the supers and frames accumulate until the close of the honey flow and then extract. Even if only capped honey is extracted, this honey is much thinner if extracted as soon as capped than if left on the hive until the close of the

honey flow. There is a very marked difference. There is no reason why the honey cannot be extracted warm with our system. When it comes to the quantity of honey extracted, we have extracted on an average 1000 pounds an hour, keeping it up for a day. I feel very sure that is quite outside of the range of the leaf hive.

In regard to wintering bees in houses above ground, as suggested by Mr. Spuhler, a good many of us think that about the worst place for a colony of bees to winter. I have seen several such structures, and in no one case did the bees winter well in them. Where neighbors are close, and the area at the command of the beekeeper is very limited, and not many colonies kept, the "house apiary" may be an important help to overcome difficulties.

Brantford, Canada.

[Location, climate, circumstances of different kinds constitute the reasons for differences of opinions on the subject. Wintering bees in the shelter of a bee house has not proven injurious in our case. On the contrary, the bees wintered best for us in a bee house. But in every other particular, our experience tallies with that of brother Holtermann. We will be glad to hear from others upon this subject.-EDITOR.]

FIG. 17.-CATNIP

honey producer. If it had sufficient value for other purposes to justify its cultivation, it would probably be an

No. 4.-The Honey-Producing important source of nectar.

Plants

BY FRANK C. PELLETT.
(Photographs by the author.)
CATNIP.

HE mint family of plants is a very large one, with square stems and opposite leaves. Most of the mints are aromatic, and many are used in medicine or cookery. Among the better known mints may be mentioned: lavender, spearmint, peppermint, pennyroyal, rosemary, germander, horsemint, horehound, savory, sage and many others. There are several wellknow bee-plants among the mints, two of which will be here considered. The rest will wait until such time as we are able to secure satisfactory pictures, as the chief object of this series is to enable the reader to recognize the plants under consideration.

Catnip, or catmint (Nepeta cataria), was introduced from Europe, and cultivated in herb gardens. It is thus an escaped introduction and has become very widely naturalized in the United States. Although it is generally considered a weed, it is usually to be found only in the vicinity of buildings and gardens, and seldom spreads into the fields to any extent. Almost all of us remember the popularity of catnip tea among the grandmothers of an earlier generation. The plant is a perennial growing from 2 to 3 feet high, with Howers in clusters, the more conspicuous ones being in a terminal spike. The blooming season is rather long, and the bees visit it very freely. Apparently the plant yields much nectar, although it is seldom present in sufficient quantity to test its real value as a

HORSEMINT.

There are several different species of horsemint (Monarda), known also as bee-balm and wild bergamot. Some of the species are represented in nearly all sections from New England to Texas. The photograph shows M. fistulosa, the wild bergamot of the North. The corolla is so deep that, as a rule, the bees do not seem to reach the nec

tar. In some cases it is reported as yielding freely. Whether the corollas are punctured by other insects and the bees are thus able to reach the nectar, or whether the plant secretes so freely as to fill the cup up to the point where the bees are able to reach it, the writer will not attempt to say.

The horsemint of the South is said to be one of the best honey plants, and is especially valuable in Texas where large yields are occasionally reported from this source alone. It is also reported as common in the southern States east of Texas, though less is heard of the honey production in other sections.

The honey is said to be of good color and body, but strong, although of fair flavor.

The horsemints are widely distributed, and where sufficiently plentiful are regarded as valuable honey-plants. FIGWORT OR SIMPSON HONEY-PLANT.

Simpson honey-plant, or figwort (Scrophularia marilandica), is another very widely distributed plant. It is common in the woods from Maine to the Rocky mountains and south to the gulf. It is also said to occur on the Pacific coast. The same or a similar plant occurs in Europe and Asia.

It is a tall growing plant from 3 to 6 feet high with numerous small branches. The stem is four angled with rather long pointed leaves. The flowers are very numerous and quite small, as will be seen by the picture. It blooms in late summer, and is freely visited by the bees.

HEARTSEASE (Polygonum).

We now come to another large family with a variety of names. In some localities one name will apply while in another the plant will be known by an entirely different one. Smartweed, knotweed, doorweed, persicaria, lady's thumb, water pepper, heartsease, and several other names

133

are applied to these plants. They are widely distributed, covering practically all of the United States and Canada, as well as much of Europe and Asia. P. persicaria or lady's thumb, the large flowered kind is most often called heartsease, and is also said to be the best honey producer. It is an introduced species, coming from Europe, and is still widely scattered through the sale of clover seed, the seed of this plant being common with red clover seed.

The honey gathered from these plants varies greatly, both in quantity and quality. Some species do not seem to yield at all, or at least not regularly, while others produce large quantities of nectar. The blooming period in the North is from midsummer until frost, and occasionally large yields are reported, an average of 200 pounds per colony not being the highest on record, from this source alone. Sometimes honey from these plants is of very good quality while from other species it is very dark and of poor quality. The better grade honey is sometimes designated as heartsease honey, while the poorer grade is called smartweed honey.

These plants grow in moist fields everywhere, and frequently come up in grain fields late in summer after cultivation has ceased, thus offering plentiful forage for the bees, in fields where otherwise they would find nothing.

Figure 20 shows two of the common kinds.

Atlantic, Iowa.

Copyright, 1915, by Frank C. Pellett.

American Bee Journal

Bees as a Nuisance

BY S. D. GUSTIN.

NCREASING population, greater dissemination of knowledge, and the development and specialization of industries, pursuits, and occupations combine to add constantly to the complexity of the relations of individuals, and to call, from time to time, for the readjustment of the affairs of men to meet changed and changing conditions. In no other branch of the law is the ingenuity of the courts more heavily taxed in this manner than in the subject of nuisances, where, from the very nature of the Jubject, first principles, rather than specific legislative enactment, must always exert a controlling influence. The lawmaking power may, as occasion seems to require, declare that particular objects, actions, omissions, etc., shall be nuisances, either with or without regard to attending conditions or circumstances, but the application of such statutes is necessarily so limited that the general law of the subject is not affected.

It therefore follows that courts still deal with nuisances largely from the principles of the common law, and it is a matter of serious doubt whether, in any instance, specific legislative action can be proven to have any substantial value as an addition to the law of the subject. A nuisance at common law is that class of wrongs that arise from unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a person

FIG. 19-FIG WORT OR SIMPSON HONEY-PLANT

venience, discomfort, or hurt that the law will presume a consequent damage.

Text writers and legislative enactments state many variations of the foregoing comprehensive definition from Mr. Wood's treatise on nuisances, but there is no substantial disagreement as to what constitutes a nuisance. Another definition, stated broadly as a general proposition, is that every enjoyment by one of his own property which violates in an essential degree the rights of another is a nuisance; and this substantial violation of a right is the true test or a nuisance, for it is not every use of his property by one which works injury to the property of another that constitutes a nuisance. Injury and damage are essential elements of a nuisance, but they may both exist as a result of an act or thing which is not a nuisance because no right is violated. On the other hand the pecuniary injury may be insignificant and the act or thing causing them be such an invasion of the rights of another, or of the public, as to constitute a nuisance for which an action for damages or for abatement will lie.

Nuisances are classified by the law as public and private, and there is authority for a third class called "mixed" nuisances. A nuisance is public where it affects the rights of individuals as a part of the public, or

the common rights of all the community alike; a private nuisance is one affecting a single individual, or individuals of a particular class, group, or locality, in a private right; the third class, referred to as mixed nuisances, are public in their nature, but at the same time specially injurious or detrimental to one individual or more in particular, who suffer a different or greater hurt than the community in general.

Nuisances are further divided into nuisances per se, or such as are declared so by the common law or by some statute, without regard to locality, surroundings, or circumstances, and nuisances per accidens, or those owing their hurtful consequences to some particular attendant circumstance, surrounding, location or condition, without which they would not be unlawful. There are other less important and rather technical distinctions not necessary to be noticed here. The foregoing preliminary and very elementary observations of the general law of nuisances are necessary to a consideration of any subject with reference to its existence as a nuisance or otherwise.

It is also a frequent statement of the law, and may be accepted as authoritative, that no lawful occupation or business is a nuisance per se, except it be declared so by some special enactment prohibiting certain things as objectionable to particular localities. So also the reasonableness of the use of one's property may depend upon its situation, for what might be lawful in one locality would prove intolerable in another. The use of a building in the midst of a city densely populated for a storage house for hardware would not be objectionable in the slightest degree, while the use of the same building for the storage of gunpowder or other high explosives could not be permitted.

The common law, proceeding from fixed principles of universal application, and developing from the growth of civilization, has, in each succeeding period, found ready adjustment to new subjects resulting from the widening dominion of mankind over the creatures and forces of nature, furnishing a ready remedy for every wrongful encroachment of one upon the rights of another. In the times of the early law writers bees were most generally known as they existed in their original state. Hence they were called-ferae naturae and classed as wild animals. A property right, or at least a qualified property right, in them could be acquired by capture, which, in accord with the general rule concerning wild animals, existed so long as the captor could hold them in possession. A distinction seems always to have been made between the possession of animals ferocious and those of gentler dispositions, and it was indictable as a nuisance to permit an animal of known mischievous disposition to go at large. Bees, however, seem never to have been regarded as ferocious or as likely to do in

jury to persons or property, and in the far greater number of instances in which they have been the subject of judicial consideration the questions at issue have concerned the property interests in them. It is doubtful now, however, if any court would denominate them as wild animals, in view of the present general state of development of the industry of honey production and the numerous instances of State legislation designed to promote and protect the breeding and rearing of bees for that purpose. In the one or two cases decided in American jurisdictions in which the question has been presented, it has been determined, in accordance with the rule above referred to, that the keeping of bees, even in large numbers and in towns and villages, is not a nuisance per se.

But greater interest, perhaps, centers in the question of whether or not bees may be so kept as to constitute a private nuisance, and also whether municipal corporations, as cities and towns, may restrain or prohibit their presence within the corporate limits. In answering the first proposition, it must be borne in mind that persons who dwell in urban communities must of necessity submit to such restrictions upon their absolute liberties that the dwellings of other persons therein shall be tolerable. As it is the unreasonable or unwarrantable use of one's premises or property, otherwise lawful, that contributions an essential element of a nuisance, a first inquiry in any case would be directed to this point of reasonableness of the use or occupation, and in determing this all of the surrounding facts and circumstances would enter into the consideration. The presence of one colony at a given point might be perfectly consistent with the due observance of the rights of the owner of the next lot, while a colony stationed at another point within the same distance would be obnoxious to the law. Again, one colony at a given place might pass unnoticed, while a number of colonies at the same place would be a nuisance. The habits of the bees, the line of flight, the temper and disposition of the colonies, either separately or when collected together in numbers, might all furnish matter of more or less weight in reaching a conclusion. So also the character of the annoyance or injury done to the complainant must be a substantial element. In the only reported case involving this question it was charged, and the court found there was proof, "that during the spring and summer months the bees so kept"-140 colonies on an adjoining city lot and within 100 feet of plaintiff's dwelling -"by defendants greatly interfered with the quiet and proper enjoyment and possession of plaintiff's premises, driving him, his servants and guests from his garden and grounds, and stinging them, interfered with the enjoyment of his home, and with his family while engaged in the performance of their domestic duties, soiling

articles of clothing when exposed on his premises, and made his dwelling and premises unfit for habitation." These facts were held to constitute a nuisance, against which the plaintiff was entitled to injuction and nominal damages. These facts just recited, however, probably present an extreme case, the immediate proximity of so many colonies being, no doubt persuasive evidence that the annoyance suffered by the plaintiff was due to the defendant's use of his premises. Greater difficulty would be experienced in reaching such a conclusion if there were no colonies stationed in the immediate vicinity, a thing entirely possible under the common belief that the insects go considerable distances for their stores.

So it may be said of bees, as of other property, that no hard and fast rule can be laid down by which to determine in advance whether the presence of bees in any given numbers or at any given point will amount to a nuisance. But, not being a nuisance of themselves, as a matter of law, and absent also any general State enactment declaring them to be such, bees will not, under any circumstances be presumed to be a nuisance, but the matter will rest in the proof adduced, with the burden upon the party alleging the affirmative. But they may, upon proof of particular facts showing all the elements necessary to the existence of a nuisance, be condemned as such, either of a private or public character, as the nature of the injury might decide.

Predicated upon the theory advanced in the beginning that courts would now, if the matter were called in question, decide that bees are domestic animals, and it having already become a matter of legislative ecognition that they are subject to communicable diseases, a question arises as to the liability of the keeper of diseased bees. At common law it was an indictable offense, which has been re-enacted by statute in most of the States, to take a domestic animal suffering from a communicable disease into a public place or to turn it into the highway so that the disease might be communicated to the animals of other persons. It could hardly be said to be less culpable to knowingly keep diseased bees, which, by their nature may not be restrained or confined, to spread disease to the apiaries of other owners. If to turn a horse with glanders or a sheep with footrot into the highway is a public nuisance, on the same reasoning to turn bees at large to carry communicable diseases peculiar to them to other bees ought to be an offense of the same grade.

The power of a municipal corporation, as a town or village, to restrain or prohibit within its limits the keeping of bees, or to denounce them as a nuisance, is commonly reported as a fruitful source of vexation to keepers of bees, but one case only is reported as involving a judicial determination of that particular point. And here,