1895 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



805 



tions. You say, "The section-holder arrange- 

 ment may be emptied by simply removing a 

 wedge or tightening-strip, and theo all are prac- 

 tically loose." That's a fine example of the 

 way to teach an error by stating a truth. The 

 words you say are strictly true; but the infer- 

 ence likely to be drawn — namely, that some- 

 thing quite different rules with the T super— is 

 the reverse of true; for loosening the very same 

 wedge in the T super leaves the sections just as 

 loose, and the manner of emptying is just as 

 "self-evident," in one case as in the other. So 

 No. 6 falls to the ground with a "sickening 

 thud." But I forgive your attempt to deceive 

 in No. G. It doesn't come so much from a bad 

 heart as from blindly following the teachings of 

 a man so far behind the times as the writer of 

 " A Year among the Bees." 



As to the matter of looks of the T super with 

 one or four cleats, you are not paying a very 

 high compliment to the good sense of bee-keep- 

 ers when you say that 99 in 100 would reject the 

 thing because of its looks. I have a better 

 opinion of them. But when you say, "The 

 outside cleats on both ends are intended in lieu 

 of hand-holes," I give in. I think I like the 

 four cleats. 



You repeat one of your former arguments, 

 and thus compel me to repeat my reply. No. I 

 am not as much accustomed to the section - 

 holder as to the T super; but it doesn't necessa- 

 rily follow from that that I can't see the advan- 

 tages in something new: and the proof of that 

 lies in the fact that, when I knew as much of 

 wide frames as I now do of T supers, and as 

 little of T supers as I now do of section-holders, 

 I nevertheless changed from the old to the new, 

 and am I not just as likely to see advantages in 

 a new thing again, if those advantages really 

 exist? 



And speaking of wide frames reminds me 

 that I ought to remind you that you have not 

 told us what advantage the section-holder has 

 over the old wide frame. If it's no better than 

 the wide frame, and the T super is better, does 

 it not logically follow that the T super is better 

 than the section-holder? 



Now I think I'll leave you to sum up the dif- 

 ferences between us and agree not to talk back, 

 asking you not to forget that any width of sec- 

 tion can be used in the T super, and only one 

 width in the section-holder. I don't know for 

 certain what width is best. Do you? After 

 using many thousands 1^ wide I changed to 

 1%, and I should very Aiuch dislike, by adopt- 

 ing a section-holder, to contract to use nothing 

 narrower than IJi for the rest of my life. 



Marengo, 111. 



[Then you don't admit proposition No. I. 

 Suppose you turn to p. 741, Doolittle's article, 

 and see how he manipulates rows of sections. 

 Remember that he and a host of others use sin- 

 gle-tier wide frames; and one of the main rea- 

 sons, if I am correct, why they use them is the 



facility afforded in transposing rows of sections 

 over the top of the brood-nest. The only differ- 

 ence between these and section-holders is in the 

 use of a top-bar. Knowing in the first place 

 that a large number were following Doolittle in 

 the use of what is now known as the Doolittle 

 surplus arrangement, we adopted the section- 

 holder device, which is, to all intents and pur- 

 poses, the same thing. P. L. Viallon, once the 

 leading bee-man of the South, was, and for 

 aught I know is now, an earnest advocate of 

 the Doolittle arrangement. With either this or 

 the section-holder proper, and intelligent ma- 

 nipulation, we can avoid hundreds of pounds of 

 unfinished sections; and this may mean profit 

 as against actual loss. 



Before I leave proposition No. 1 I must say 

 that our position as supply-dealers and pub- 

 lishers puts us where we can see what bee- 

 keepers are using and calling for. The T super 

 has had its day among the great majority of 

 bee-keepers, no matter how well a few. like 

 yourself and some others, may like it. Why? 

 Among other reasons because it favors the pro- 

 duction of unfinished sections — something that 

 can be more easily avoided with single-tier 

 wide frames or section-holders. 



If No. 2 stands we will pass on to No. 3. I 

 contend this is not a case of special pleading. 

 You say we are not talking about the abuse but 

 the proper use of a thing. Isn't it rather this 

 way? In the language of President Cleveland, 

 we are " confronted by a condition, not a theo- 

 ry." The "theory " is. that sections in T su- 

 pers can be held square by the use of a lot of 

 extra fixings. The "condition" is. that the 

 majority of bee-keepers (not won't but don't) 

 fu,«s with these strips of wood that require so 

 much care in adjusting Bee-keepers do not, 

 as a rule, stop to*take the "diamond" shape 

 out of the sections in T supers, as you would 

 find if you bought honey by the ton and carload 

 from ail over the country as we do. Neither do 

 they scrape those same sections. 



This brings us to point No. 5; and here again 

 we are confronted with a "condition;" and 

 that condition is the most satisfactorily met by 

 the section-holder. 



Suppose we say that our present spelline is an 

 abuse in the nse of superfluous letters. We can 

 not ignore that abuse as you would have us do 

 in the ease of the non-scraping propensity of 

 the majority of bee-keepers. We must take it 

 as it is, as we do every day in spelling. If the 

 section-holder, when keyed up with slotted 

 wood separators, gives cleaner sections without 

 scraping, and truer in shape, then it is the bet- 

 ter arrangement. As to your other points, I 

 would refer the reader to my former state- 

 ments to which yours are in reply. — Ed.] 



THE PURITY OF CALIFORNIA HONEY. 



THAT HALF THE HONEY PRODUCED Bf CALI- 

 FORNIA HAS BEEN ADULTERATED WITH 

 GLUCOSE, AND SENT EAST, NOT TRUE. 



By Oeo. W. Brodheck. 



Friend Root.—l am very much disposed to 

 take exception to the publication of such a 

 sweeping statement as the one made by C. W. 

 Dayton, in Gleanings, page 739, that "half 

 the honey produced by California has been 

 adulterated with glucose, and sent east by a 

 few, if not very few, wholesale firms." A 

 statement of this kind, and of which you your- 



