THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



187 



idly are requested to peiul a sample to Prof. 

 A. J. Cook, of the Michigan Afjricultural 

 College, that he may determine to how large 

 an extent honey may consist of cane sugar. 



After Prof. J. A. Lintner, State Ento- 

 mologist of N. Y. had attended a convention 

 of scientists at Washington, he had about 

 decided that fruit trees might be sprayed 

 when in bloom without injury to the bees; 

 but after hearing the subject discussed an 

 hour at the Albany convention of bee keep- 

 ers, he decided to advise against the practice. 

 In the same way, if Prof. Wiley could be in- 

 duced to attend the coming meeting of the 

 North American in Washington, and a dis- 

 cussion of the detection of the adulteration 

 of honey could be introduced by Prof. Cook 

 it is possible that Prof. Wiley might learn 

 that his methods and conclusions need re- 

 modeling. As Secretary of the North Amer- 

 ican. I shall try to bring about this result. 



After the foregoing was in type, the fol- 

 lowing letter came to hand from Prof Wiley. 



Washington, D. C, June 2«, 1892. 

 W. Z. Hutchinson, 



Flint, Mich. 

 Dear Sir : 



I have only one copy of your jour- 

 nal : Dec. 10, 1891. I should be glad to get 

 other copies, esijecially the one containing 

 the "Sugar Honey" article by Mr. E. E. 

 Hasty ; also all numbers containing ref- 

 erences to the so-called "Wiley lie" or to 

 Bulletin 13, Part (J, issued by this Depart- 

 ment, on adulteration of honey. 

 I am, Respectfully, 



H. W. Wiley, Chemist. 

 In reply to this I sent some copies of the 

 Review, told the Prof, that I was glad to get 

 a letter from him, as I thought that it would 

 be better if he and the bee keeping world 

 were better acquainted. I urged upon him 

 the importance of knowing that he was right 

 and being able to prove it. I also most 

 earnestly requested him to attend the com- 

 ing meeting of bee-keepers in Washington, 

 assuring him that I believed his attendance 

 would lead to a mutual advantage. He was 

 also invited to use the columns of the Re- 

 view, if he desired to make any defense or 

 explanation. In reply, I have received the 

 following kind and gentlemanly letter. 



Washington, D. C. July 2, 1892. 

 W. Z. Hutchinson, 



Flint, Mich. 



My dear Sir : 



I am in receipt of your letter of re- 

 cent date and also the copies of the "Bee 



Keepebs' Rbvibw " which you so kindly 

 sent. Please acceiit my thanks for the same. 

 It will be a matter of great gratification to 

 me to meet the American Bee Growers in 

 their convention in Washington, next au- 

 tumn, and I shall certainly do so provided 

 my official duties do not require my presence 

 in some other part of the country at that 

 time. I shall make, however, a special effort 

 to be present. 



I am aware of the prejudice, existing in 

 the minds of many bee growers, against me, 

 owing to the statement contained in my ar- 

 ticle in the " Po/nilar Science Monthly,'" 

 eleven years ago. to the effect that pure arti- 

 ficial honey was made by mechanical means. 

 I regret exceedingly that I made this state- 

 ment although at the time I was thoroughly 

 convinced of its truth. As I say in Part G, of 

 Bulletin 1?>, an experience now extending 

 over many years has never brought to my 

 attention a single sample of such adulterated 

 lioney. I am very glad that your journal 

 has not taken part in the personal abuse 

 which has been directed against me on the 

 part of some of the bee growing editors, and 

 I gladly accept your suggestion to say a word 

 in your columns and this letter you are at lib- 

 erty to publish. 



I notice particularly the editorial which 

 is to appear in your next issue and of which 

 you kindly send me the copy. It is very fair 

 in spirit but I fear not quite ready to accept the 

 statements of chemists regarding adultera- 

 tion of honey. You refer, as others have done, 

 to the adulterated honeys bearing the label of 

 C. F. Muth A- Son as instances of the liabil- 

 ity of chemists to go astray. Now there is 

 no doubt whatever of the fact that these hon- 

 eys were adulterated very largely with glu- 

 cose, some of them containing over fifty per 

 cent. Mr. Muth has evidently purchased 

 honeys of this character and attached his 

 own label to them. I have not for a moment 

 considered that Mr. Muth did the mixing 

 himself. I understand that he is a gentle- 

 man of the highest integrity and would un- 

 der no circumstances consent to such a prac- 

 tice. Mr. Muth, however, should assure 

 himself, by careful chemical analysis, that 

 the honeys he purchases are pure or else he 

 will be liable to make the mistake of attach- 

 insr his label to the false article. I question 

 whether it would be good policy in any man 

 to attach labels of guaranteed purity unless 

 he has something better than his own taste 

 to guide him in the matter. Aside from this 

 reflection on the ability of chemists to detect 

 adulteration in honey there is nothing in 

 your editorial to which I could possibly take 

 exception. 



I am now cooperating with Prof. Cook in 

 the examination of a large number of sam- 

 ples of honey of known purity and there is 

 no doubt but that these examinations will re- 

 veal a great variation in the composition of 

 genuine honey. There is no variation how- 

 ever, in a genuine honey, which would make 

 it similar to corn-starch glucose. It is ad- 

 mitted in Bulletin 1.'^. Part 6, that the adulter- 

 ation of honey with invert sugar is a difficult 

 matter to detect, while there is no chemical 

 process easier than the detection of honey 

 adulterated with glucose. I make this state- 



