Amos Ives Root.

The A B C and X Y Z of bee culture; online

. (page 45 of 80)
Online LibraryAmos Ives RootThe A B C and X Y Z of bee culture; → online text (page 45 of 80)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

will breed to excess after the honey-flow,
using up all their available stores in raising
bees, when Italians would conserve their
energies and leave enough honey for win-

In the matter of rearing queen - cells,
either the Cyprians or Holy Lands will rear
more queens than any Italians, Camiolans,
blacks, or hybrids we ever saw. We have
known as many as a hundred natural cells
on one frame ; and we also had one instance
where 25 cells from a Holy-Land queen
hatched within a few minutes of each oth-
er ; and so vigorous were the young queens
that some of them actually flew the moment
they popped out of their inclosures.

Few questions are
asked oftener than, '4Iow shall I Italianize?
and when shall I do it?" There is always a
loss in removing a queen and substituting
another, even where we have laying queens
on hand ; and where we are to use the same
colony for rearing a queen, there is a still
greater loss. Under the heads of Nuclei
and Queen - rearing these points will
be found fully discussed. Where one has
an apiary of black bees, his cheapest way,
especially if he has plenty of time to devote
to the subject, is to purchase three or four
choice tested queens, and rear his own
queens from them after the honey-flow. He
should then put drone-traps on all his black
and hybrid colonies, leaving only the Italian
drones the freedom of the air. See Drones.
If the breeders are bought in the spring or
summer months, I would not remove the old
queens until the summer crop of honey
is over; but, instead of allowing natural
swarming, take two or three frames from
each old stock about swarming time, and
make nuclei, giving them queen-cells from
the breeding stock.

Digitized by





When these queens are hatched and lay-
ing, build the nuclei up, with frames of
brood given one at a time, until they are full
stocks. By such a course you have the full
benefit of your old queens during the honey-
season, until the new ones are ready to take
their places. After the honey-yield has be-
gun to cease you can remove the old queens,
and give the now small colonies queen-cells,
as you did the nuclei at first. This does the
swarming for the season, and the Italian-
izing, at one and the same time. See In-
crease; also Nucleus.

If you have more money than time to
spare, and wish to have the work done up
quickly, purchase as many queens as you
have colonies, and introduce them at any
season of the year, as directed in Intro-
ducing Queens. You can purchase all
tested queens if you wish, but I would ad-
vise taking the untested Italian queens dur-
ing the months of July and August when
they are the cheapest, and this is also the
best time of the year to Italianize. If done
in the spring it is liable through change of
queens to cut off brood-rearing, and, hence,
worker-bees when the harvest comes on.
Some find it more convenient to change
queens during the sioarmtngr season, first for
the purpose of stopping swarming, and sec-

ond because then there are plenty of cells
usually at this time from choice stocks. See
West's queen-cell protector under Queen-

After your stocks have all been provided
with Italian queens, by either of the plans
given above, if you wish your bees to be
pure Italians you are to commence replac-
ing all queens that prove to be hybrids, as
soon as the young bees are hatched in suffi-
cient numbers to enable you to decide. See
Italian Bees. Now, if honey only is your
object I would not replace these hybrids
until they are one or two years old ; for they
will average nearly if not quite as well as
honey-gatherers, and will raise just as pure
drones as pure Italians. If you should find
the bees of any particular queen too cross to
be endurable, replace her with another, at
any time. Be careful, however, that these
hybrid colonies be not allowed to swarm
natiirally, for if they raise a queen she will
produce hybrid drones*; and this is some-
thing we wish most scrupulously to guard
against. It will be better to raise all the
queens yourself, and make nuclei while
you are seeking to Italianize.

♦To uret rid of blaok and hybrid drones, see


KALE. (Brassica rapa,) The thousand- I rape except that it yields more fodder. It
headed kale. This plant is very similar to | is an excellent honey-plant. See Rape.

Digitized by




lOLixm RBAATZsra to bsbs.

Blackstone, the great exponent of common
law, says: "Bees also are/crce naturce (wild by
nature); but when hived and reclaimed, a
man may have a qualified property in them
by the law of nature as well as by civil law."
And Bracton says: "Occupation, that is,
hiving 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 nests thereon, and,
therefore, 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 it;
and in these circumstances no one is en-
titled to take them. But in respect to such
animals as are in the habit of going and re-
turning, as pigeons and bees, which are ac-
customed 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
animiks revertendi when they have discon-
tinued their habits of returning."


In case a swarm fiy from the owner's hive,
his qualified right continues only so long as
he can keep them in sight and possesses the
power to pursue them where he has a right
to pursue, or otherwise positively and dis-
tinctly identify them. The diflSculties in
reclaiming bees after taking fiight are many.
The decisions of our courts furnish numer-
ous peculiar circumstances, and unfold the
difficulties in reclaiming bees that have es-
caped from the hiyes or soil of their origi-
nal owner. In the case of Goff vs. Kiltz,
16 Wend, N. Y. 650, 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 fol-
lowed the bees and marked the tree in which
they entered, while he had no right to enter
upon the property to recover them without
the consent of the owner, yet he could

maintain an action of trespass and damage
against a third party who entered the land,
cut the tree down, killed the bees, and took
the honey away.


Bees may be recovered by the issuance of
a writ of replevin.


If the claimant simply requires damages
for the loss of the bees, trover is the remedy.


This, Blackstone says, *' extends this pos-
session further than mere manual occupa-
tion; for my tame hawk that is pursuing his
quarry in my presence, though he is at lib-
erty to go where he pleases, is nevertheless
my property, for he hath animus 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 posses-
sion, and I still preserve my qualified proper-
ty 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.'-


It is practically impossible to prove the
identity of a swarm of bees in a court of law,
even if they possess peculiar characteris-


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 express restriction
they are liable as common carriers. For a
given reward they prolfer to become his
carrier; for a less reward they proffer to
furnish the necessary means that the owner
of the bees may be his own carrier; and if
the owner and shipper agrees to this ar-
rangement the railway is not liable.


Bees may be the subject of larceny if they
are in some person's possession. Much de-
pends on what constitutes possession; but
it is generally assumed the owner of the
land is also the owner of the bees (in hives)
situated thereon. Bees are likened unto

Digitized by ^OOQ IC




wild animals, belonging to no one so long I
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 owner's
custody, as in a hive or bee-house, or other-
wise confined and within control of the
possessor or owner.


The Supreme Coui-t of New York in the
case of Goodwin vs. Merrill said : *'A man's
finding bees in a tree standing on another
man's land gives him no right, either to the
tree or bees: and a swarm of bees going
from a hive, if they can be followed and
known, are not lost to the owner, but may
be reclaimed."


If bees temporarily escape from the hive
of their owner, who keeps them in sight
and marks the tree into which they enter,
and is otherwise able to identify them, they
belong to him and not to the owner of the
soil. In such a case the property draws aft-
er it possession sufficient to enable the own-
er of the bees to maintain trespass and re-
cover damages against a third person who
fells the tree, destroys the bees, and takes
the honey, notwithstanding the owner of
bees himself is liable to trespass for enter-
ing on the land of anotlier for similar pur-
pose without authority.


Where one discovers bees in a tree, obtains
a license from the owner of the soil to take
them, and thereupon marks the tree with
his own initials, he gains no property till he
takes possession of the bees, that is to say,
he must take them out of the tree.


Strictly speaking, a trade or occupation, a
business or industry lawful in itself, and
which becomes a nuisance because of its lo-
cation, or the manner in which it is conduct-
ed, or the character of the animals or thing
is not a nuisance per se, though it may be a
prima-facie nuisance.

Whether bees are a nuisance or not depends
on the evidence submitted to the court, and
in a broad way it may be stated that bees
are a nuisance when the plaintiff can claim
damages for injury either for himself or his


This has been very clearly decided by the
courts. In case of Olmsted vs. Kich, before
the Supreme Court of New York, the evi-

dence showed that the plaintiff and defend-
ant were neigiibors, the latter keeping a
large number of hives of bees in a lot imme-
diately adjoining the plaintiff's dwelling,
and at certain seasons they were a source of
great annoyance to him and his family, and
also that they could be removed without
material difficulty to a place on the defend-
ant's premises where they would not disturb
the neighbors. The action was in the na-
ture 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 injunc-
tion. In such action the issue was not as to
defendant's motive in keeping bees, nor
whether he had any knowledge of any vi-
cious propensities, of the bees, but simply
whether the condition of things as then and
previously existing constituted a nuisance.
The court held aflfirmatively, and the bees
were ordered removed in order to abate the


The most celebrated case of this kind on
record is that of Clark vs. City of Arkadel-
phia, 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 ^ith 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
move his bees, but refused to do so, and his
arrest and conviction by the city court un-
der the ordinance followed. lie appealed
to the Circuit Court, the latter dismissing
the prosecution, and 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 own-
ing, keeping, or raising of them within the
city limits a nuisance, whether it is in fact
so or not, is too broad and is not valid.


In April, 1901, the council of the city of
Rochester, N. T., passed an ordinance pro-
hibiting the keeping of bees within the city
limits. W. R. Taunton, who refused to re-
move his apiary, was arrested and brought
before a police court. The judge set aside the
ordinance and the defendant was discharged.
The latter was defended by the counsel of
the National Bee-keepers' Association.

In the Butchers' Union Co. vs. Crescent
City Co. (Ill U. S. 746), Justice Fields says:
*'The common businesses and callings of

Digitized by V^OOQlC




life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which
are innocent in themselves, and have been
followed in all communities from time im-
memorial, must, therefore, be free in this
country to all alike on equal terms. The
right to pursue them without let or hin-
drance, except that which is applied to all
persons of the same age, sex, and condition,
is a distinguishing privilege which they
claim as their birthright." In the same
case Judge Bradley says: " I hold that the
liberty of pursuit, the right to follow any of
the ordinary callings of life, is one of the
privileges of a citizen of the United States,
of which he can not be deprived without in-
vading his right to liberty within the mean-
ing of the constitution.

It may be well to state in this connection
that the National Bee-keepers' Association
frequently undertakes to defend its mem-
bers in a court of law where the circumstan-
ces warrant the assistance of this influential


The need of some sort of quarantine law
to deal with the contagious diseases of bees
was foreseen long before legislative action
was taken. The first State to take the step
was Wisconsin, though the original law has
since been superseded by a better one sug-
gested by experience. Nebraska still has a
law, passed in 1885, but rather too drastic to
suit modem ideals. California, Colorado,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minne-
sota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York,
Ohio, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wy-
oming all have foul-brood laws. Arizona
had one, but by an oversight it was repealed.
Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Connecticut
will probably possess foul-brood laws at an
early date, as vigorous efforts have been
made of late to secure the enactment of the
same. Ontario and New Zealand have foul-
brood laws patterned after Americanstatutes
on this subject. Ireland and England are
also expecting the passage of foul-brood
laws, for it is clear that legislation can do
much to hold this dire disease of bees in
check— when it is rightly enforced.

These laws may be divided into two
groups— those having state inspectors and
those which possess local or county inspec-
tors. For example, Wisconsin, New York,
Ontario, Minnesota, Idaho, Texas, Wyo-
ming,Missouri , and Michigan have inspectors
who are appointed by and responsible only
to the State authorities. The others have
county inspectors paid out of county funds.

With the exception of Nebraska, where the
cost is borne by the apiarists, all the expense
of inspection is assumed either by the local
or State government, and this is deemed
wise, as it seems rather hard to lose one's
hives, etc., and yet pay for supervising the
destruction of them by a government officer.

In New York the inspectors have to con-
fine their attention to American foul brood
and European foul brood (black brood) only,
and in Ontario to American foul brood
only, though it is quite possible they could
examine for black or European foul brood.
In all the other States the inspector has the
power to examine for any other contagious
disease of beis.

In nearly all the laws now in force, two
inspections of an apiary each season are al-
lowed. If foul brood is discovered on the
first visit the inspector issues his instruc-
tions for disposing of it. On the second
visit, if the disease is still present the in-
spector acquires full power to destroy the
colony or colonies affected.

Provision is made for penalties for those
who refuse the inspector access to their
apiaries, and also for those who will fully dis-
obey the provisions of the law in other re-
spects. As a rule these penalties are heavy,
in some instances $1C0 being named. The
foul-brood law of New Mexico is peculiar
from all the rest, probably to conform to
Spanish ideals. Briefly, it provides that a
justice of the peace, on complaint from any
one, may examine or have examined an
apiary supposed to have foul brood. On
being satisfied that it is so he may order the
sheriff and his deputies to go and destroy
the infected colonies.

In Colorado the foul-brood inspector is
appointed by and is responsible to the county
court. Before such an officer is appointed,
however, five bee-keepers must petition to
the court for the appointment to be made.
State inspection seems to be the best; at
least Wisconsin, New York, and Ontario
have the reputation of having well-executed
laws on this subject. The Colorado county
law works well, however, probably because
the counties there are as large as an eastern
State. In Illinois the State Bee-keepers'
Association receives a subsidy for the pur-
pose of providing inspection for foul brood.
This makes the association a quasi govern-
ment bureau, and serves to give the bee-
keepers' organization weight and standing.
It also removes the inspectorship from po-
litical influences and intrigue.

Digitized by ^OOQlC




It may be well to place before the readers
of this book a State law which may be con-
sidered a model, the Idaho law being the one
selected. It fairly represents the latest
ideas of legislation on bee-diseases.


The State horticultural inspector shall te tx officio
State bee-i aspect or, whose duties it shall t)e, either
by himself or duly qualified and competent depu-
ties, to examine bees of the Slate, and to tr at, con-
demn, and utterly destroy by fire or by burying at
least two feet under ground all t>ees, honey, and fix-
tures found to be affected with foul brood or any
other infectious or contagious disease.

Sec. 2. Upon application of the president and sec-
retary of any bee association, or upon petition of
three bee-keepers of any horticultural-inspection
distiict in the State, the Stute bee-inspector may
appoint deputy bee inspectors for the district from
which such application or petition comes; and such
deputy shall have the same powers and duties
within his district as the State bee-inspector, and the
tenure of his office shall be concurrent with that of
the State bee-Inspector unless sooner dismissed.

Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the State bee-
inspector or his deputy, upon recelvingr informa-
tion from any source of the existence, in any apiary
in his district, of the disense known as foul brood,
or any other infectious or contagious disease of
bees, forthwith to 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 owner 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 such diseased colonies such treatment
as may have been prescribed by the inspector of
bees for such oases; also thoroughly disinfect, to
the satisfaction of such Inspector, all bee-hives*
combs, honey, and apparatus that have been used In
connection with any such colonies; or, at his elec-
tion, the said owner or person in charge of such bees,
hives, house, comb houses, honey, and apparatus,
shall destroy by fire, or bury the same in the ground
with a covering of not less than two feet of earth.

Sec. 4. Every bee keeper or other person who
shall be aware of the existence of foul brood, either
in his own apiary or elsewhere, sh ill immediately
notify the inspector of bees of the existence of such
disease, and in default of so doing shall be gui'ty of
a misdemeanor, and punishable by a fine of not more
than five dollars and costb.

Sic. 5. The Inspector of bees shall have the right
to enter the premises of any bee keeper where bees
are kept, and inspect such bees; and any person re-
sisting or refusing to allow such inspection by said
bee-inspector sbuU be guilty of a misdemeanor, and
may be tlien and there arrested b> said bee-inspec-
tor, or person deputized by him, and brought before
a justice of the peace; and upon conviction shall be
fined not less than ten dollars and not more than
twenty-five dollars.

Sec. 6. If any owner or possessor of bees shall
disobey the directions of said inspector in curing or

destrojring any diseased bees, honey, hives, or appli-
ances, they shall become unlawful and a public
nuisance, and the said bee-inspector shall at once
destroy said bees, honey, hives, or appliances, and
may deputize such additional persons as he may find
necessary to effect such destruction.

Sec. 8. Should any person whose bees have been
destroyed or treated for foul brood seU or offer for
sale any bees, hives, or appurtenances of any kind
after such destruction or treatment, or before being
authorized by the inspector to do so, or should he
expose in his bee-yard or elsewhere, infected comb,
honey, or other infected thing, or conceal the fact
that said disease exists among his bees, he shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable by a fine
of not less than ten dollars nor more than fifty dollars.

Sec. 9. Any person, persons, company, or corpo-
ration who shall bring into the State of Idaho any
apiary, colony, or colonies of bees shall immediately
notify the State or deputy inspector of bees of such
fact, stating where any such colony or colonies are
being kept^ and it shall be the duty of the State or
deputy inspector to proceed to examine such colony
or colonies, and ascertain whether or not they are
free from foul brood or other infectious or conta-
gious disease. Any person, persons, company, or
corporation who shall fail to notify the State or
deputy bee- inspector, as required by this section, for
a period of ten days after the arrival within the
State of Idaho of such colony or colonies of bees
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable by
a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than
one hundred dollars.

Sec. 10. The inspector shall have full power, in
his discretion, to order any owner or possessor of
bees dwelling in box hives in apiaries where the
disease exists (being boxes without movable 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 destruction of
such box hives and the bees dwelling therein.

Seo. 11. After inspecting infected hives or fix-
tures, or handling diseased bees, the inspector shall,
before leaving the premises or proceeding to any
other apiary, thoroughly disinfect his own person
and clothing and shall see that any assistant or
assistants with him have also thoroughly disinfected
their person and clothing.

Sec. 12. The State bee-inspector shall make an
annual report to the Governor of Idaho, giving the
number of colonies treated, also the number of
colonies destroyed, and statistics bearing on the

Sec. 18. All act« and parts of acts in conflict with
this act are hereby repealed.

Sec. U. Whereas emergency existing therefor,
this act shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage and approval.

This law seems to cover the whole ground,
leaving no loop-hole whereby a guilty party

Online LibraryAmos Ives RootThe A B C and X Y Z of bee culture; → online text (page 45 of 80)