184 



THE BEE KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



especially in ' off years ' or when the seasons 

 are almost failures, I hailed with great 

 satisfaction the prospect of a substitute, 

 that could be obtained at no greater out- 

 lay than for ' extra thin ' foundation. I 

 could see no more objection to its use in 

 sections, than to thin or extra thin founda- 

 tion, and any objection to the one would 

 hold good as to the other, and it was with 

 great surprise, as well as pain that I saw the 

 stand the editor and his valuable correspon- 

 dents took on this subject, for I held and do 

 still hold, that if it's a success mechanically 

 and can be placed on the market at the same 

 price as the foundation ordinarily used, it 

 will be used, and valued, as foundation has 

 been used and valued, all opposition to the 

 contrary notwithstanding. And if it will in- 

 crease the amount of comb honey raised, all 

 the better, for then less extracted will be 

 obtained, and the adulterators have less stock 

 to work with. 



The argument that such ' drawn founda- 

 tion ' that the projectors are now making 

 such efforts to perfect, can be filled with 

 glucose and sealed over by machinery, is 

 simply ridiculous, and is not worth a mo- 

 ment's thought, and it is astonishing that bee- 

 keepers can be found to revive the ' Wiley 

 lie ' that has not yet done its work in damag- 

 ing their pursuit. No one in the United 

 States has done more to develop the produc- 

 tion of honey, or whose interests are more 

 intimately connected with the welfare of 

 honey production than those now engaged 

 in developiLg this new improvement, and 

 as they are intelligent business men. who 

 can for a moment believe they would devel- 

 op and introduce an article that would give 

 a death blow to their business ? I hold that 

 it is only fair for them and ourselves to 

 await events, and give this thing a fair trial, 

 and not condemn it untried by so many. 



It seems only reasonable to me to think 

 that all progressive bee-keepers would be 

 intensely intere'tfd in this matter, and 

 would encourage with their sympathy, those 

 that are trying to take a step forward, and 

 not onpose or condemn them before they 

 have had a chance to show whether it is a 

 step in advance or not. I have not one 

 cent's interest in this matter more than the 

 average bee-keeper, but I do like to see fair 

 play, and all who try to go ahead and get 

 out of the ruts, given a fair show. " 



To me Mr. Flanagan's views seem very 

 reasonable, fair and conservative, as do 

 those of Mr. P. H. Elwood in Gleanings. 

 From his article I quote one paragraph. 



"The samples from your new machine 

 are just received and show a marked im- 

 provement over the first. With my present 

 knowledge, until a thorough trial proves me 

 wrong, I prefer the sample with ^h inch 

 side walls, and weighing 12 ft. to the pound. 

 This must prove very acceptable to both 

 bees and consumers. The part of the cell 

 wall that the bees sometimes neglect to thin 

 is at the very bottom, where it is attached 

 to the midrib. I notice in your samples 

 that this part shows no greater thickness 



to the naked eye than the remainder of the 

 cell wall. The cell walls and septum of 

 these walls are so thin, and the quality of 

 the wax is such that, after repeated trials, I 

 have not succeeded in chewing a mouthful 

 into a ' gob. ' Thick foundation made of 

 poor wax has the ' gob ' at both start and 

 finish. I do not wish to flatter you; but I do 

 believe you have the most valuable inven- 

 tion of recent years in beekeeping." 



The point in this that I particularly wish 

 to notice is where he calls attention to the 

 fact that the bees don't thin the side-walls 

 of foundation at the point where they touch 

 the midrib. Mr. Holterman has also called 

 attention to this same fact that was brought 

 out by his experiments. In this new, deep- 

 cell foundation this objection will be re- 

 moved. 



In the May 1 No. of Gleanings is an arti- 

 cle by some one who signs himself "Jus- 

 tice. " Here is one of his paragraphs. 



"While much more fair than any of the 

 others, I am surprised at some of the things 

 written by Bro. Hutchinson. The desire 

 to prejudice against the deep- cell-wall foun- 

 dation is quite apparent in one of his articles. 

 In this he is only doing what he considered 

 very unfair in the sugar honey controversy. 

 Some sensitive people, while eating honey 

 at my house, have piled up bits of wax about 

 their plate, when eatinp, before the advent 

 of foundation ; equil to anything that 

 I have ever seen since when the same per- 

 sons were eating comb honey from sections 

 which were filled with foundation: while the 

 one who found no wax in his comb honey 

 before foundation came, finds no wax 

 now. There has been such a desire toprej- 

 udice against this deep-cell wall foundation 

 that matters have been only partly stated, all 

 evidently having been given with a desire to 

 create an opposition to it, and not in its 

 favor. " 



I was not aware that I had written an 

 article in which "' the desire to prejudice 

 against the deep-cell wall foundation is quite 

 apparent." I certainly have written nothing 

 but the truth. I have no desire to prejudice 

 any one against, nor for, the new founda- 

 tion. If it turns out that it is unobjection- 

 able I shall rejoice. 



If any one eats clear comb honey, and no 

 other food with it, it is an easy matter for 

 the particles of comb to accumulate in the 

 mouth and be pressed together by the teeth 

 and chewed up into a chunk that can be spit 

 out, but when other food, as biscuit, is eat- 

 en, the particles of broken up comb mix in 

 with the doughy mass and are really an 

 assistance to digestion. Comb foundation 

 cannot be broken up in this manner. It is 

 too tough. 



