125 



about that ?" In the manufacture of cane 

 sugar, the moment the juice is expressed 

 from the cane, it is mixed witli lime, and 

 during the varying processes of refining, it 

 is mixed twice more at least with it. Almost 

 the last thing before the final granulation, it 

 is treated to a dose of it. Mr. Root is not 

 read up on sugar refining, or he would not 

 have stated that blood and other offal of 

 slaughter-houses is used. That is the old 

 process, and in first class establishments has 

 been superseded by lime. But you may ask 

 is this sulphate of lime, gypsum? No, un- 

 fortunately, it is not. If it were, it could be 

 much more easily removed, as gypsum is 

 less soluble in water, and more permanent 

 in chemical combinations, than any other 

 form of lime. This whole controversy seems 

 to be based upon the idea that glucose neces- 

 sarily contains lime and acid. As cane sugar 

 is so liberally dosed with lime in its manu- 

 facture, considering the vast quantities of it 

 used, we might expect to see great evil 

 resulting from it, but certainly nothing of 

 the kind occurs, for two reasons chiefly. 



First, because lime when taken in small 

 quantities as a mixture with food is harm- 

 less. And in the second place, there is none 

 left in the sugar to eat. Now, then, the im- 

 portant question is, are these agents more 

 difficult of removal from one sugar than from 

 another ? 



The question only needs to be stated to 

 show its absurdity. If the manufacturers 

 of glucose fail in this matter, and thus do 

 not give us pure glucose, let. us not buy it ; 

 and if there is any demand for it, somebody 

 who can and will produce a pure article will 

 supply that demand. 



We have Mr. Dadant's quotation from 

 Bloxan to show how easily we can detect 

 the sulphate of lime, and if any one is 

 imposed upon the second time by the same 

 manufacturer, it will be his own fault. He 

 also states that the best chemists of France, 

 England and the United States say that glu- 

 cose always contains more or less sulphate 

 of lime. This would be a very foolish 

 statement for those wise men to make, as it 

 is sometimes manufactured without the use 

 of lime or acids. 1 have examined a few 

 authors, and have not found one who makes 

 any such statement. Such authors as 

 Towne.Youman, Gregory, Bowman, Atfield, 

 Wells, TJ. S. Dispensatory, American Cyclo- 

 paedia, and some others, make no mention of 

 such mixture. I do not wish to be under- 

 stood as calling in question Mr. D.'s state- 

 ment ; but as I have given the names of a 

 few authors who do not mention the matter, 

 will Mr. D. give us the names of the best 

 chemists, with the title of the book and page 

 where these statements can be found. 



1 fear Mr. D. scarcely does Prof. Kedzie 

 justice in saying that he has found both 

 sulphuric acid and lime in samples of glu- 

 cose. If this statement has any meaning, it 

 is intended to answer Mr. Root, when he 

 says they cannot exist in an active state in 

 the same substance at the same time. That 

 this statement is true no one knows better 

 than Prof. Kedzie. What the Professor 

 found was sulphate of lime and sulphuric 

 acid, and the reason the acid was there was 

 because the manufacturer did not use chalk 

 enough to neutralize it. Mr. D. also inti- 



mates that glucose cannot be made with any 

 acid but sulphuric. This is an error ; it can 

 be produced by the presence of almost any 

 acid, or without acid at all. 



But why all this outcry against glucose? 

 Is it because unprincipled scamps are using 

 it to adulterate cane sugar ? If so, punish 

 them. For whoever mixes them and sells 

 them as cane sugar is a thief, and I am as 

 willing and anxious to catch him as anyone. 

 I am willing to take any action that holds 

 out any promise of curtailing this fraud. If 

 we can find any legitimate use for glucose, 

 we can easily get it pure. I have had that 

 which was practically so. 



On the 23d of October, 1877, I obtained 

 from one of my neighbors, who was going to 

 obtain some honey by the old brimstone 

 process, some black bees. 1 prepared two 

 hives, putting into each one three or four old 

 dry combs and some frames filled with foun- 

 dation, but not one drop of honey. I began 

 at once feeding pure glucose dissolved in 

 water. Each colony took in between 10 artd 

 15 pounds. I examined them frequently, 

 and found they had built their foundation 

 out pretty well, and the combs were as hard 

 as a board with the glucose, as it had solidi- 

 fied as fast as deposited. 



Thus they remained until the 10th day of 

 March, almost five months, without a taste 

 of anything but glucose. On opening them 

 at this time, I found that one colony had 

 eaten up all their stock of glucose, while the 

 other one had perhaps a pound left. I now 

 gave each of them two frames containing 

 some honey, and as a result of this dreadful 

 poison on which these bees wintered, for 25 

 lbs. of glucose I received $25.00 worth of 

 honey, and have the same colonies yet heal- 

 thy and prosperous. 



Now, Mr. Editor, how can you explain 

 these facts ? In the December number of 

 the American Bee Journal, you speak of 

 a minister who lost eight colonies, and an- 

 other man who lost several hundred colonies 

 by feeding glucose. Shall I say I don't be- 

 lieve glucose did the mischief ? My evidence 

 is positive. I fed glucose. My bees lived on 

 it exclusively all winter, and came out strong 

 and healthy ; therefore, it is not poison, and 

 it follows that those who fed glucose and 

 lost their bees, either fed impure, poisoned 

 glucose, or their bees died from some other 

 cause. It also follows that if my glucose 

 was pure, others can have it pure. I will 

 venture the assertion that nine out of ten of 

 those who have fed it, have not noticed its 

 "killing effect" on their bees. I have no 

 special fight to make for glucose. I have no 

 use for it except to feed weak colonies late 

 in the fall, 



Whitehall, III. 



[Dr. Foreman answers his own questions. 

 The glucose of commerce and the pure arti- 

 cle are two different things. Our testimony 

 on the other side is just as positive. We 

 had both from eye witnesses, and no more 

 doubt it than we doubt our existence. The 

 clergyman is an unimpeachable witness. 

 The killing of several hundred colonies by 

 it is just as positive. We were personally 

 told by the man who mixed and fed it to 



