468 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



June 15. 



price he pays to the bee keeper, he is not doing 

 as he would be done by, to say the least. In 

 the tirst place, he virtually robs the bee-keeper 

 of two cents on every pound of honey sold. In 

 the second place he robs the honest commission 

 man, who would have got the consignment, of 

 the sale of that honey. 



We want our bee-keeping friends to kei p us 

 fully posted on all cases of this kind; and if 

 your commission man does not allow you in his 

 account of sales the figures that he has quoted 

 at the time the sale is made, then ask the 

 reason why; and if he does not give a satisfac- 

 tory answer, report him to us at once. 



We make no charge for advertising-space for 

 commission firms in our Honey Column. The 

 space is valuable, and they are willing to pay 

 for it; but we would rather not take any pay, 

 so that we can drop them out of the Honey 

 Column at any lime when they fail to toe the 

 mark. 



I have been thinking it would not be a bad 

 idea to ask our commission men to render 

 account of sales according to the system of 

 grading at the head of our Honey Column. For 

 instance, Messrs. A. B. C. & Co., commission 

 men, will make account of sales something like 

 this: 



18 crates of comb honey, fancy, 15 cts. 



60 cases ditto, No. 1, 13 cts. 



5 cases comb honey. No. 1 amber, 9 cts. 



A. B. C. &Co. 



The bee-keeper knows exactly how the honey 

 was classed, and the prices received. But, un- 

 fortunately, the account of sales at ihe present 

 time is rendered something in this way: 



18 cases of comb honey, 15 cts. 

 20 cases of comb honey, 13 cts. 

 10 cases, amber, at 9 cts. 



X. Y. Z&Co. 



It will be seen from the last named that the 

 producer does not know exactly how his honey 

 was classed — that is, ivhy the 20 cases sold for 3 

 cts. less than the 18 cases; but if the account 

 is rendered according to the one by A. B. C. & 

 Co. he knows whether or not he is getting mar- 

 ket quotations. If our commission men should 

 see this I hope they will take the pains to make 

 out their account of sales somewhat on this 

 plan — the one over the name of A. B. C. & Co. 



THE SUGAR-HONEY QUESTION AND THE ATTI- 

 TUDE OF THE REVIEW. 



The following is a letter received from Bro. 

 Holtermann, of the Canadian Dee Journal, 

 which will explain Itself: 



THE REVIEW NOT SILENT. 



I notice your little item in Gleanings, page 433, 

 June 1, a footnote to au extract from the Review, in 

 which the editor of the latter periodical claims that 

 the Bevieiv has kept silent upon the " sugar-hone^' " 

 question, and feels inclined to take me to task for 

 condemning him for what are his private opinions. 

 If the Review has kept quiet upon this question of 



late, what does the following mean in the March, 

 1896, issue of the Review, page 88? "The last number 

 [of the Canadirm Bee JournaV] makes a cheerful 

 shout over the passage of the legislation they have 

 been crying for so long— the anti-sugar-honey bill. 

 It has been amended somewhat, it seems; and lack 

 of time or modesty, or some other reason, keeps 

 thera from giving us the text, so we can not see for 

 ourh.elves just what sort of a looking "critter" it is. 

 We venture to guess that the Solons of the govern- 

 ment have given them enlarged penalties against 

 real adulteiators and evil-doers, and shorn their 

 power to persecute innocent neighbors." 



The above is penned by Hasty, in his "Review;" 

 and knowing the views of Hutchinson and Hasty, 

 and reading the above, if the writing has any mean- 

 ing at all, does it not mean, viewed from their 

 standpoint, that the members of Parliament would 

 be wise enough to know that such feeding of sugar, 

 and selling it as honey, is not adulterating, and that 

 such men are innocent ? Silence upon this question 

 in the Review would certainly be "golden;" but I 

 am afraid that, to claim such as the above as silence, 

 savors of brass. R. P. Holtekmann. 



iJranlford, Can. 



There may be a difference of opinion as to 

 whether the advocacy of sugar honey was 

 begun again in the March Review from which 

 the quotation was made. However, I have 

 been sorry to see what seems to be a spirit of 

 unfriendliness on the part of Bro. Holtermann 

 toward Bro. Hutchinson. The editor of the 

 Canadian Bee Journal has taken Issue strongly 

 with the editor of the Review on matters en- 

 tirely foreign to sugar honey, it is not so much 

 what Bro. Holtermann said as the way he said 

 it; and it Is the spirit of his utterances toward 

 Mr. Hutchinson on several questions, especially 

 his rejoinder above, that make me feel a little 

 sad, especially as both are my friends. 



Now, understand I am not defending in the 

 least the production or sale of sugar honey; 

 nor am I excusing those who look a part in its 

 early advocacy. As they have of late said little 

 or nothing, it has seemed unwise lo belabor 

 them now. There is such a thing as carrying 

 matters of this kind too far, defeating their 

 very object — thus making the opposition more 

 determined to carry its point. 



I believe, in the present Instance, both parties 

 are perfectly honest in their convictions; and 

 while the one side was too hasty (I do not mean 

 this as a pun) in launching upon the bee-keep- 

 ing world an untried experiment, and one of 

 doubtful expediency, the other side has erred 

 in being a little too severe in condemning— and 

 persistently condemning — after there was no 

 real occa^iou for it. 



Now, if both sides will drop the matter where 

 it is, with the feeling that the other side was 

 honest in its convictions, the harmony of feel- 

 ing that formerly existed will be restored. 



Although 1 have had no correspondence with 

 Mr. Hutchinson over the matter, I feel safe in 

 saying that the Review vfill go half way, and 

 more if need be. 



