To whom does the invention belong? From articles lately appearing in
_Gleanings in Bee Culture_, and editorial comments thereon, I think
there is a misapprehension of what the above invention consists, or what
it really is, and whose property it is. The above-mentioned articles and
editorials are, I feel, doing me an injustice, and have a tendency,
virtually, to rob me of all the benefits, to say nothing of the
“honors,” of the discovery, which I had considered to be _my property_.
As to what constitutes my invention, I will quote from my article in the
_A. B. Journal_, page 57, in reply to Mr. Heddon’s claim to the
invention of the frame illustrated in _Gleanings_, page 104.
“At the annual meeting of the Southeastern Michigan Beekeepers’
Association, held at Adrian, Mich., Jan. 23, 1884, I exhibited samples
of a device for reversing brood-frames, which device, or plan, suspended
the frame by strips of wood, or metal, which strips were pivoted to the
centre of the end-bars, and extended up to the top of the frame, there
forming projecting arms to rest on the rabbets, and allowing the frame
to revolve on these pivots.
In describing the device before the convention, I distinctly claimed as
my invention, the plan of suspending the frame between side-strips
pivoted to the end-bars, as described.”
Previous to the illustration and description of my device, all
reversible-frames had fixtures at both _top_ and _bottom_; see
_Gleanings_ for 1882, page 71, also 1883, page 65, Burgess’ device;
1884, page 155, Baldridge’s device; and 1884, page 332, Hetherington’s
device. These attachments were entirely different in principle from the
“Howes’ Supports.” No one had ever suggested revolving the frames on
“_centre pivots_,” previous to the illustration, and description of my
frame in Gleanings for 1884, page 156.
Soon after I began to manufacture and sell Howes’ Reversible Frame and
Supports,--as advertised in _Gleanings_, for 1884, page 285,--reversing
devices began to appear from all quarters; both men and women joining in
the scramble for the “honor,” if not for the profits of the invention;
each one suspending the frame by “_centre pivots_,” as I had described
them. Several used hoop-iron bent at a right angle to form projecting
arm. (Prof. Cook at the Michigan convention claimed to have tried this
plan, though a lady, I think, first described it in _Gleanings_).
Mr. Root has often, through _Gleanings_, acknowledged that these
different devices are, practically the same thing as the “_Howes’
Support_;” still he does not hesitate to manufacture, advertise and sell
them, as if the invention was common property. (See editorial remarks in
_Gleanings_; page 74, describing Mr. Nuzvinis’ device; then Editorial in
next number, page 104, on the same subject.)
I submit the question, in all seriousness. Does not this state of things
_justify_ anyone, in securing his rights to the labor of his brain, by
a _patent_, as provided by law? If a better device, to secure the
results aimed at, by reversing the brood-combs, shall be discovered, I
shall be glad to adopt it, in my own apiary, and will, willingly, pay
for the privilege. Until then, I request all to “please keep off my
preserve.”
_Adrian, Mich., Feb. 7, 1885._
_WHICH IS THE MOST PROFITABLE RACE OF BEES._