AMERICAN BKh. JOURNAL. 60l 



favor of the practice in question I am safe in saying that you can find no single 

 word in that direction, for I never favored it, and I am not in the habit of thinking 

 one way and speaking another. You hint about its being expedient " to avoid say- 

 ing anything about it." Does that condemn? Weren't there thousands of good 

 men who were entirely silent about it? Do you condemn them? Were you not 

 silent about it yourself ? 



But if you'll take the trouble to look, I think you will have no trouble in seeing 

 that I committed myself on the side you think right. I have an impression that no 

 man did any more than I did to stop the discussion that we thought was doing harm, 

 what I said being all the more effective just because it was not said publicly. 



1 think I hear you say, " Yes, all you say may be true, but then you cannot 

 deny that you defended the man who started the discussion." Let us look at the 

 nature of that defense. Prof. Cook said he thought bees could make genuine honey 

 out of cane-sugar. No matter how much he may have been mistaken in his view, 

 he was honest in his belief. Prof. (3ook is no deep-dyed villain. If there's an 

 honest man in our ranks, he's one. But we thought he was wrong in his views, and 

 we called out, "Shut up." He shut up. Then the cry was raised, "He must 

 apologize." And for what ? For uttering what he believed to be a truth — a truth 

 that he thought would be of benefit to bee-keepers ? Just look that thing square in 

 the face. Friend Bevins, and see if you think it looks reasonable. Is there anything 

 about it that looks kind or just ? Against that wicked demand I raised my voice in 

 protest, and if I have any regret in the case, it is that that protest was not more 

 vigorously expressed. 



Now there are two things that are entirely separate, that I think you and some 

 others have been inclined to mix. One is that Prof. Cook is mistaken in his belief, 

 and that it is not wise to discuss that belief. That's a thing by itself on which you 

 and I are agreed, and I think you will give me credit for calling a spade a spade. 



The other is an entirely separate thing, and I will try to call " a spade a spade " 

 as I attempt to characterize it. It was the frantic effort to make him apologizef for 

 speaking what he believed to be a good and useful truth — an effort that I denounce 

 as unjust, uncharitable, unchristian. Those who participated in 1g, and who know 

 Prof. Cook for what he is, when they come to give the matter a sober second 

 thought will have no feeling of self-gratulation at having wounded a heart so loving 

 and true, and as the shadows of life's evening gather about them, and the softened 

 feelings of their better natures assert themselves, their only regret will be that they 

 did not themselves apologize to Prof. Cook. Marengo, 111. 



[*We'll have to call on Bro. Bevins to " stand up" and identify himself. Sorry 

 to say that all we know of him, Doctor, is that he's one of our regular subscribers, 

 and a splendid writer. Further than that, "this deponent saith not." 



fWe think Dr. Miller is greatly mistaken in saying that anybody wanted Prof. 

 Cook to "apologize" for anything he conscientiously believed in regard to the sugar- 

 honey matter. We certainly didn't. What we did want, was that those who were 

 the main originators und defenders of the sugar-honey idea should at least express 

 a regret if the result of their suggestions should finally be detrimental 

 to the interests of honest honey-production. That could have been done in one sen- 

 tence. But no ; they chose to say nothing at all if they couldn't press their favorite 

 (but to us, and to most others, much mistaken) claims for sugar-honey. The whole 

 thing was most unfortunate. But that matter is not going to be " aired " again in 

 the "American Bee Journal" right away. Bro. Bevins may reply to Dr. Miller's 

 question, if he thinks it worth while, but that must end it in this bee-paper. — Ed.] 



