Feb. 8, 1900. 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



83 



plenty of the former, we shall certainly not succeed, and if 

 we follow the same argument in all our affairs, we will be 

 sure to make a failure of everything-. 



Concerning- the best time to rear improved races, or, to 

 call it more plainly, to Italianize (for we do not know of 

 any race that is desirable in our eyes outside of the Ital- 

 ians), we would prefer spring, as the job- is shorter to Ital- 

 iaoize a certain number of colonies than to wait and have 

 to also Italianize the increase. .Hancock Co., 111. 



Market Price of Honey— Comb vs. Extracted. 



M 



BY DK. C. C. MII.I,ER. 



R. EDITOR :— In the Farmers' Voice for Jan. 13, oc- 

 curs in an editorial the following paragraph : 



The market price of honey is from 10 to 15 cents in Cbicaiyo, and 12 to 

 14 cents in St. Louis— that is, "iu comb. Extracted and strained in barrels 

 ranges from 6 to 6H cents, while cans are one-half cent higher. The 

 question naturally arises; Why this difference, and isn't there more 

 honey in a pound of extracted than in the comb? Certainly, but bees- 

 wax, of which the corab is made, is worth 25 cents per pound, and, more- 

 over, when the honev has been extracted and put in cans or barrels, 

 aboui half of it is cheap syrup, and of course the price is cheaper. Honey 

 in cans is not pure honey, and is not worth the money paid for the corab 

 product, which it is impossible for the tricksters to adulterate. Buy or 

 sell honey in the comb. 



Wherever the Farmers' Voice is held in esteem, the 

 effect of that paragraph will be to influence the market in 

 favor of comb honey and against extracted honey. I pro- 

 duce comb honey exclusively, so it is to my personal in- 

 terest to have a strong demand for comb, witli little con- 

 sumption of extracted. But as a matter of common fair- 

 ness, I must enter protest against the erroneous statements 

 of the Voice, which I believe it will be glad to correct when 

 they are pointed out. 



The reason that extracted honey is cheaper than comb 

 honey is 7!0t because " when the honey has been extracted 

 and put in cans or barrels about half of it is cheap syrup." 

 When a bee-keeper puts extracted honey in cans or barrels, 

 every drop of it is just as pure honey as that in the comb. 

 Honey in cans is pure honey, altho when it gets into the 

 hands of the Chicago adulterator it is only too true that 

 it is debased by mixture with an inferior article. At the 

 same time it is equally true that any one can buy in Chi- 

 cago pure honey in the extracted or liquid form in any 

 quantity, by the barrel, can, or jar. All that is necessary 

 is to buy of reliable dealers, who are not hard to find. 



The main reason for the lower price of honey in the 

 liquid form is simply that it costs less. When honey is put 

 in comb-, every pound of the wax used in making the comb 

 costs the bees several pounds of honey, besides the time and 

 labor occupied in the manufacture of the comb, (juite dif- 

 ferent is the case of extracted honey. The completed combs 

 are given to the bees to fill ; when these are filled the honey 

 is thrown out by centrifugal force, or, as it is called, ex- 

 tracted ; then the combs are returned to the bees to be filled 

 again, and this may be repeated again and again, the same 

 set of combs lasting a lifetime. In other words, when ex- 

 tracted honey is sold, it is pure honey without any bees- 

 wax ; when comb is sold, there goes with it a much more 

 expensive article than the honey, altho the consumer has 

 no benefit therefrom as an article of food. With these facts 

 in mind, it is not necessary to explain the lower price of 

 extracted honey by supposing it to be adiilterated. 



With improved laws against adulteration soon to go in 

 force, and with the aid of the daily and agricultural press. 

 it is to be hoped that a merciless warfare will be waged 

 against adulteration, and that so delightful and wholesome 

 an article of food as honey may be found as a staple article 

 on the table of the rich and the poor. 



McHenry Co., 111. 



Victory in the Chicago Honey-Lawsuit. 



BY C. THBILMANN. 



MOST of the readers will remember reading in the first 

 number of the American Bee Journal for 1897, of the 

 terrible stealing of produce from the shippers by a 

 lot of Chicago commission men, something over three years 

 ago, when many bee-keepers lost all of their honey of that 

 season's crop by shipping it to them. Among them was 

 the writer, who shipt 10,346 pounds of comb honey to H. C. 

 Bartling & Co. It was sold to them for 11^ cents a pound, 

 free on board the cars here, one-third to be cash on arrival 

 of the honey at Chicago, and the rest in 60 and 90 days. 



I waited about 10 days after shipping, and when no 

 money came I went to Chicago, and found that my honey 

 was sold (pretended, or partly hid). I demanded .settlement, 

 when a report was made out, which showed the honey all 

 sold on commission. With the freight charges, cartage and 

 commission deducted from the sales, it netted over $200 less 

 than the cash sale I had made with the firm before the 

 honey was shipt. But 1 gladly accepted their statement, on 

 whicji they paid me $250, and promist to pay the rest later 

 on. 



I got their check certified to at their bank, and took 

 further advice from my attorneys, Messrs. Masterson & 

 Haft, then demanded the balance due on the statement, 

 which they refused to pay. 



Bartling was then arrested, but the justice of the peace 

 dismist the case. 



Then Bartling arrested me for stealing the statement 

 his partner gave me. The case was tried before Justice 

 Hoffman, four or five miles out from the center of the city, 

 which was also dismist. 'TT -J 



I then was re-arrested for libel, and sued for $11,500, 

 and would have had to go to jail if I had not had a rich 



C. Theilrnann. 



friend at Chicago to go on my bond. At the same time 

 Bartling was sued for the balance of his statement before 

 the Circuit Court, which ended with a decision and a judg- 

 ment for $711.80 against Bartling. He askt for a new trial, 

 which was granted, with the result that the judgment stood 

 good. 



Bartling then appealed to the Appellate Court, whose 

 judges also held the judgment good. It took a long time 

 in these courts on account of some mistakes, technicalities, 

 and hair-splitting among the attorneysTJn both sides. But 

 my attorneys forced Bartling to give bond for the judg- 

 ment and costs before he could appeal. 



Not satisfied with the decisions of the foregoing courts, 

 Bartling appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of 

 Illinois, and I was bound to follow him to the end of the 

 courts. This court also decided the judgment in the former 

 courts good. That ended Bartling's appeals — he was forced 

 to make a settlement or go to jail. He preferred to settle, 

 and paid up Jan. 16, 1900. The libel suit was dismist some 

 time before this, and, thank God, I again feel like a free 

 ■man, and out of the teeth of one of the worst sharks in the 

 shape of man that Chicago harbors, who did not hesitate to 

 ruin his own father, but this Minnesota fanner and bee- 

 keeper was too much for him. Bartling is beaten., and I 

 trust he may see his mistake, and make his living honestly 

 hereafter. To do this, he has natural gifts and abilities, if 

 he would only make good use of them. 



