112 



THE AMERICAN BEE-KEEPER 



June 



bee-keeping. While the law is not, 

 and should not be, a respecter of 

 persons, and while we strongly ad- 

 vise tracing the evil to its source 

 and administering merited pur ish- 

 ment to the guilty ones, whoever 

 they may be, we believe it would be 

 unjust to publish the name of the 

 person upon whom suspicion seems 

 to rest, without further investiga- 

 tion and proof ; especially as he 

 stoutly maintains his innocence and 

 declares that the goods he shipped 

 to Mr. Hakes was "Pure Basswood 

 Honey, with a big P" for pure. We 

 therefore withhold the gentleman's 

 name, for the present at least, and 

 patiently await developments. 



Following is a complete report of 

 the case, with name omitted: 



Station B, Toledo, O., April 5, 1900. 

 Eugene Secok, General Manager of the 

 National Bee-keepers' Association. 



Dear Sir: In complying with your re- 

 quest for a report of the proceedings in 

 tlie case of M. G. Hakes, of Jackson, 

 Mich., who was arrested, and tried in 

 the Circuit Court of Jackson County, for 

 the sale of adulterated honey, I have 

 this to report: 



On the 30th of January last, I i-eceived 

 a request from you to attend the trial of 

 Mr. Hakes, as the representative of our 

 Association, and do what I could to help 

 in the prosecution of the case that was 

 to be tried on the :32nd. In compliance 

 with your request I attended the trial. 

 I learned that last fall, Mr. W. D. Soper, 

 a bee-keeper living near Jackson, Mich., 

 and who also deals in honey, discovered 

 that what he thought was adulterated 

 extracted honey was being placed upon 

 the market at Jackson. He bought a 

 sample of the honey and sent it to the 

 Michigan State Dairy and Food Com- 

 missioner. On September 29, 1899, Mr. 

 Carl Franke, a State Food Inspector, of 

 Monroe, on his regular inspection tour 

 at Jackson, called at Mr. Hakes' place 

 of business and purchased of him two 

 one-pint cans of what he was selling for 

 honey, one of them being labeled and 

 ready for the market, and the other was 

 taken from the original package, a live- 

 gallon can. Mr. Franke had explained 

 to Mr. Hakes that it was his duty "to 

 keep tab on all the foods that were ex- 



posed for sale, and also on honeys," and 

 asked him to sell him a package of hon- 

 ey, which he did willingly. The cans 

 were labeled "M. G. Hakes. Pure Honey, 

 Jackson, Mich.'" 



At the trial of Mr. Hakes in the Circuit 

 Court for the County, in Jackson, Mr. 

 Franke stated, in substance, while on 

 the witness stand, that when food sam- 

 ples were procured for inspection certain 

 records were made, and in this case tlie 

 record of the inspector showed that, in 

 the sale of this adulterated honey, 

 Martin G. Hakes acted as agent, and 



that the manufacturer was 



and the package was marked '■ Pure 

 Extracted Honey," and was purchased 



of Mr. about Aug. 21, 1899. 



Another witness, the Food and Sanit- 

 ary Inspector of Jackson, testified that 

 the original package from which the 

 sample of honey in question was taken 

 had not been opened till Mr. Franke 

 opened it, and that Mr. Hakes acted as 



agent for . 



Mr. Franke, on cross-examination, 

 testified that other samples from Mr. 



"s "factory" than the one under 



consideration had been sent to the State 

 Analyst, and all were adulterated to 

 about the same extent as this, except 

 one of comb honey. 



Mr. R. E. Doolittle, State Chemist, of 

 Lansing, Mich., testified to having ex- 

 amined the sample under consideration, 

 and found it to be adulterated honey. 

 The per cent, of adulteration I do not 

 now remember, but it was large ; I be- 

 lieve about 57 per cent, of glucose. 



Mr. Doolittle, in reply to a question 

 by the attorney for Mr. Hakes, said that 

 he had always had the impression that 

 Mr. Hakes was only the ag(>nt for Mr. 



, and that Mr. had done 



the mixing. 



In reply to the question, "Was this 

 honey represented to you as pure by Mr. 



?" Mr. Hakes testified that a few 



days before he was arrested (he was ar- 

 rested Oct. 11, 1899), he was told that 

 he was selling adulterated honey, and 



he said that he wrote Mr. a 



letter, telling him that one man, a 

 stranger, had offered to bet him $2.5 that 

 the honey was not pure, and Mr. Hakes 

 told him that he "would put up the 

 money with him any minute ; but before 

 I would do it I sat down and wrote a 



letter to Mr. and said to him, "I 



want to know, now, Mr. , if I am 



selling pure honey or if I am not.' He 

 wrote me back, stating that 'If my 

 honey goes from me to you, and from you 



