1896. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



291 



Bee-Keepers' Union — Honey Competition and 

 Prices. 



BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



Referring to page 242, I think Mr. Newman is not war- 

 ranted in characterizing as an "unkind fling" what was a 

 plain statement of fact, and I am sure it was given with no 

 malice aforethought. He thinks my language misleading and 

 unreasonable when I say, "There's no use blinking the fact 

 that it is now on the down-grade as to members." He says it 

 is no more on the down-grade than other institutions, but that 

 has nothing to do with the case. 1 wasn't saying whether it 

 was more or less sliccessful than other institutions. I was 

 only saying it was on the down-grade as to numbers. He says, 

 " Last year its decrease was only 20 per cent.;" and whenever 

 I can see that a falling off of 20 per cent, isn't being on the 

 down-grade as to numbers, I'll gladly retract. 



For I'm sure I want to see the Union on the up-grade, aad 

 I'm sorry to see so many misunderstandings concerning its 

 union with the North American. Witness the absurdity of 

 the idea that amalgamation would oust the present Manager, 

 and that amalgamation could not be effected because then it 

 would be international, while the Union has always been in- 

 ternational, and a Canadian had 16 votes at the last election. 



The latest is from G. A. Millard, on page 254. Like a 

 good many others, he seems to think that the advocacy of 

 amalgamation comes mainly from members of the North 

 American who are not members of the Union. I wish he 

 would take the trouble to look the matter up and give us the 

 names of those who have advocated amalgamation who are 

 not members of the Union. He wants the advocates of amal- 

 gamation to " walk up and pay their $1.00 like the rest of 

 us." Give us the names of those who haven't paid their §1.00. 



But there's nothing new about that error. The new part 

 comes when he wants them not to "tack onto members who 

 do not wish it, the expense of expensive meetings." Who ever 

 dreadied of such a thing ? Each person has always paid his 

 own expenses, and I don't know that any one has thought of 

 anything different. It is just possible that Mr. Millard might 

 mean the incidental expenses of the meeting, but hardly that, 

 for he would hardly call an expensive meeting one whose ex- 

 penses didn't reach a hundred dollars. 



REPLY TO G. M. DOOLITTLE. 



Mr. Doolittle, I don't — that is, I'm not entirely sure I can 

 answer all your questions, but I'll make some effort in that 

 direction, and as you refer to matters in preceding numbers, 

 it's a pleasure to know that all the numbers of the "Old Re- 

 liable" for this year are before me, safely anchored in a wood 

 binder. If you haven't tried one of those binders, I'm pretty 

 sure you ought to, for I think you would be pleased there- 

 with. 



Tbe first question (on page 255) is, "Why do you object 

 to California honey coming to the Chicago market?" Before I 

 can answer that, I must ask you to show me the place or time 

 when I made such objection. I don't quite dare to say I 

 never said anything of the kind, for you're such a hand to re- 

 member and refer to what has been said, that I don't want to 

 run any risks. But I'll only go so far, just now, as to say that 

 I have no present recollection of having objected to California 

 honey coming to Chicago. And as all the rest of the questions 

 in the same paragraph are on the same basis, I must ask to 

 postpone the answers till I know what I said against Califor- 

 nia competition. 



Your next question wants to know why so many mouths 

 are watering for honey while you and I are growling at low 

 prices. Say, Doolittle, between you and me don't you think 

 it's a mean trick of you to take advantage of a fellow the way 

 you do by barring him out from the use of the only available 

 answer he has on hand by saying in advance, " Please do not 



say, ' I don't know ?'" Whatever other reasons there may be 

 why so many people don't eat honey, I think one of the rea- 

 sons is that they are ignorant and imagine that honey is a 

 luxury they can't afford, when in reality it is a better and 

 cheaper food than they suppose. I don't suppose many peo- 

 ple know that children will be better satisfied and nourished 

 with a pound of honey than with a pound of butter. 



You next ask why hardly as much honey is consumed now 

 as when there were only half as many psople and honey three 

 times as high. I didn't know that was so, but supposed there 

 was more used now. If there's hardly as much used now, isn't 

 the principal reason that it isn't produced ? For I have some 

 doubt whether there would be such a wonderful sight more 

 produced if the price was higher. Don't most bee-keepers 

 produce all they can, and all they would if prices were higher ? 

 I'm not sure that I'd produce a pound more if prices were 

 doubled. Would you ? Then again I think, as I have already 

 said, that more honey would be used if people knew its in- 

 trinsic value. Mr. Martin may be right, that people prefer 

 glucosed honey at a lower price, but that's again just the 

 same ignorance on the part of the people. They don't know 

 how much better the pure article is. 



You want to know why I'm growling over low prices when 

 a pound of honey will buy just as much wheat, potatoes or 

 land as ever. Well, maybe I've growled more than I ought 

 to, and at first blush it looks as though I had no reasonable 

 excuse for growling if relative values kept all the same, the 

 honey of this year buying just as much as the honey of other 

 years. But right there's the trouble. In spite of the way 

 you've put it, the honey of last year wouldn't begin to buy as 

 much as the honey of former years. At least it wouldn't with 

 me. Very true, a pound of it might, but a crop of it wouldn't, 

 and when a day's labor brings more wheat than formerly, 

 and a day's labor brings less honey than formerly, you can 

 hardly expect me to feel satisfied with as much wheat as I 

 used to get for a pound of honey. See? If I could get the 

 same crop of honey now for the same labor as formerly, then 

 I ought not to complain at swapping for the same amount of 

 wheat as formerly, but if I can only get one pound where I 

 used to get two, then I don't feel that the price of honey 

 ought to keep step with that of wheat and other things in 

 their downward march. 



Now I'll not feel the least hurt if you'll fit a better answer 

 to these questions, and while you're at it I'll give you another 

 question to answer lest you fire it at me: Why is it that 

 there's so little difference in the price of honey whether the 

 crop is large or small ? Marengo, 111. 



Bees and Fruit— That Horticultural Fable. 



BY W. S. FULTZ. 



Mr. Editor: — On page 184, under the head of "A Horti- 

 cultural Fable," you publish and then comment on an article 

 from Meehan's Monthly for December, in which you say that 

 a bee cannot puncture a grape in any part. 



Now, Mr. Editor, I have been a fruit-grower for 22 years, 

 and I also have been a bee-keeper for over 40 years, and I do 

 know that bees can and do puncture grapes and other fruit, 

 and knowing it to be a positive certainty, I feel just like the 

 writer of that article, that is, that bee-keepers must have 

 some sinister motive in endeavoring to educate the public that 

 bees cannot destroy fruit. 



I have had hundreds of boxes of berries destroyed by bees 

 in a single season. I have seen bees work so thickly on rasp- 

 berries and strawberries that from three to five bees were on 

 every ripe berry in the patch. I have known bees to attack 

 berry-patches with a fury that was irresistible, and drove the 

 pickers entirely away. On such occasions I have looked in 

 vain for the birds, wasps, and hornets, that bee-keepers and 



