788 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Bee. 10, 



The National Bee-Keepers' Uuiou- 

 tion — Amalgamation. 



-Adultera- 



BY W. Z. HUTCHINSON. 



The National Bee-Keepers' Union was created for a 

 specific purpose — ttiat of defending its members from unjust 

 prosecutions by law. It fulfilled its purpose well, and has es- 

 tablished so many precedents — some in high courts — that but 

 few suits of this kind are now brought, or, if brought, are 

 dropped when the record of past similar suits are laid before 

 the interested parties. Practically, the Union's hard work in 

 this direction is finished — was finished several years ago. It 

 has made a record. And when that record is laid before some 

 would-be antagonist, and he is still further informed that the 

 Union is yet in existence, with a good sum of money in its 

 treasury ready to be used in the defense of its members, all 

 further thoughts of a suit are at an end. About all that the 

 Union now has to do in this line is to furnish these records and 

 "show its hand." So little money has been used in conduct- 

 ing suits for the last few years that it has been accumulating, 

 and now amounts to several hundreds of dollars — seven hun- 

 dred, I believe. 



These persecutors of bee-keepers have been put under 

 foot, so to speak ; but, in the meantime, another and ten-fold 

 greater evil has been growing, that of the adulteration of 

 honey. So great did this become that there was strong talk 

 of forming another Union, or society, for the specific purpose 

 of fighting adulterators. But it was urged, and with reason, 

 that it was foolish to start a new society for each purpose that 

 required united action — better strengthen the Union that 

 already existed and so change its constitution that its funds 

 could be used for any purpose in the interest of bee-keeping. 

 This was done, but, for some reason, or reasons, nothing has 

 ever been done in the way of prosecuting adulterators. I 

 think that the General Manager would have acted if some 

 definite case with good proof had been brought before him, but 

 this prosecution of adulterators is a case of " what is every- 

 body's business is nobody's business." There is a lack of 

 definite, personal interest in the matter. When a man is sued 

 because some one considers his bees a nuisance, he takes some 

 interest in the case. If some one should sneak into this man's 

 honey-house and adulterate his honey, he would then feel like 

 hunting up the transgressor and securing his punishment. But 

 this same man sells his honey to a dealer, and thinks or cares 

 very little what the dealer will do with it. There must be an 

 intense, selfish, personal motive to induce men to act. I 

 think it is this point that explains, or partly explains, why 

 nothing has been done by the Union in prosecuting the adul- 

 terators of honey. 



But the adulteration of honey is an injury to the bee- 

 keeping interests. It works injury in three ways. As a rule, 

 it impairs the quality of the honey. It increases the amount 

 of "honey" put upon the market. It prejudices consumers 

 against buying it; and there is no subject connected with api- 

 culture upon which there is now so much need of united ac- 

 tion as that of checking the adulteration of honey. In order 

 to have the Union do anything in the line of checking adul- 

 teration, there must be some changes made either in its con- 

 stitution or its management, or both. It must be made the 

 business of some one to ferret out and prosecute adulterators. 

 The bee-keepers of this country could well afford to keep a 

 trained detective busy the year round in hunting out adultera- 

 tors of honey and securing proof against them, and then in 

 bringing them to justice. But this would be expensive, much 

 more than the Union, as now managed, could pay. And this 

 brings up the subject of amalgamation. 



The North American Bee-Keepers' Society was organized 

 many years ago, for the purpose of bringing together bee- 

 keepers from different parts of the country that they might 

 discuss subjects pertaining to the bee-keeping industry, ex- 

 changing views and experiences, and enjoying the good that 

 comes from the friction of mind against mind; but the dis- 

 semination of knowledge through the medium of books and 

 journals has now largely stripped these meetings of their 



value. Now here are two societies that have, in a measure, 

 outlived their usefulness. The Union has won all its suits 

 until no one now dares to sue its members, and when the 

 North American meets it finds but little now to talk about, as 

 it has already been told in the journals. At the same time 

 the honey markets are being damaged because of adulteration, 

 and bee-keepers are doing nothing to put a stop to the prac- 

 tice — simply making matters worse by continually talking, but 

 doing nothing. Since these societies were organized there has 

 been a change of conditions, and these changes should be met 

 by a change in the societies. There is no necessity whatever 

 for two societies. It would seem as though this point did not 

 require argument — that it would be patent to the simplest 

 mind. That amalgamation, with a change of constitution to 

 suit the times, should be proposed is one of the most logical 

 things that ever happenad. We cannot afford to waste our 

 time, talents and money in sustaining two societies when only 

 one is needed. In union there is strength. 



When the North American made overtures for amalgama- 

 tion, they were rejected. Of course, no vote has been taken, 

 but the published expression of some of the members of the 

 Union showed that they were proud, independent and scorn- 

 ful. Not only this, but the whole matter seemed to be mis- 

 understood. There seemed to be a feeling that in some way 

 the North American was planning to reap what the Union 

 had sown — to in some manner get hold of the money that the 

 Union had raised, and squander it. Nothing could be farther 

 from the truth. All of the objections brought against the 

 uniting of these two bodies have been born of prejudice or 

 ignorance. Not a single objection has been brought that has 

 not been answered or overcome. 



Two different proposed constitutions have been gotten up 

 by the North American to be submitted by vote to the mem- 

 bers of the Union. The first one is my personal preference, 

 but the second one has now been adopted by the North Ameri- 

 can, and it may be that it is better than the first one. The 

 General Manager has criticised it quite sharply, and some of 

 his criticisms are well taken, while others are a little far- 

 fetched or hypercritical. If we wait until a constitution is 

 formulated in which no flaws can be found, amalgamation will 

 never take place. It will only be by actual experience that we 

 will learn exactly what kind of a constitution is needed. 

 Without experience it is doubtful if we get up a better one 

 than the North American has now adopted — at least, not 

 enough better to recompense us for the delay. We need to get 

 to work. 



Another feature is now coming up that needs united 

 action, and that is the prompt exposure of dishonest and un- 

 reliable commission-men and dealers. See what bee-keepers 

 have lost through Horrie & Co. and Wheadon & Co. Not only 

 have the men lost who sent them honey, but this honey has 

 been sold at almost any price in order to move it off quickly, 

 and this has weakened prices and demoralized the market. 

 References and mercantile reports are an aid, but they are not 

 an absolute safeguard. Bradstreet reported Wheadon & Co. 

 as worth from $L0,000 to $20,000. Rogues can put money 

 in a bank and get a rating, and then take it out again. The 

 Union should send a man, or employ some responsible, cap- 

 able man living near, to thoroughly investigate every new firm 

 that begins bidding for the bee-keepers' honey. Before a man 

 ships honey to a new firm, let him consult the Union, and let 

 it be the business of the Union to know — as near as it is possi- 

 ble to know — if the firm is reliable. If a firm does not deal in 

 an honorable manner let it be reported at once to the Union, 

 and if the report is a true one, let the facts be published. 



For instance, I have lately received from Sanford & Co., 

 of New York City, an order for a list of names of bee-keepers. 

 The order was on a nice letter sheet with a fine lithographic 

 heading (that point is never neglected), and Bradstreet and 

 Dun, as well as two banks, given as reference. Upon refer- 

 ence to Bradstreet and Dun it was found that the firm's name 

 was not even mentioned. The banks replied that the firm had 

 a small balance in the bank, but it was so small, and their 

 acquaintance with the firm was so slight and short, that they 

 did not care to say anything about their responsibility. San- 

 ford & Co. were informed that cash in advance must be sent 

 for the names, and that ended the matter. It is possible that 

 this firm will do an honorable business, but the chances are 

 that they will prove a third Horrie & Co. The Union could 

 have a man in each of the large cities whose business it should 

 be to look up all such cases as this, and report them. 



What we need is one good, strong, enthusiastic Union or 

 Association of bee-keepers — it matters little as to its name — 

 with a capable, energetic manager whose heart is in the busi- 

 ness. If bee-keepers could be assured of such, how they 

 would rally ! They would come by the thousands. I doubt if 

 there is a reader of these lines who would not gladly send in 



