182 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



damage was the same, for it is a com- 

 mercial condition, and not a moral 

 theory which I have been invited to dis- 

 cuss. 



In these pleasantries the Professor 

 demonstrated to us how much he could 

 hurt our business, and how little he 

 knew, after making his chemical tests, 

 whether honey was adulterated or not, 

 as is proven by reports of honey put up 

 by Chas. F. Muth. Mr. "Wiley earned 

 and received the bitter opprobrium of 

 American bee-keepers, and yet it has 

 been left for certain bee-keepers and 

 supply dealers to extend this nonsensical 

 cry to an extent which, if not stopped 

 immediately, will damage us to an 

 amount which will almost exonerate Mr. 

 Wiley in his pleasantries. 



The Bee-Keepers' Union was organized 

 for defense of bee-keepers, and it did its 

 work nobly, but last year a few believed 

 it to be best that the Union should at- 

 tack its own members, with the cry of 

 " adulteration." It would seem to me 

 that any bee-keeper with any foresight, 

 could readily perceive that in no case 

 could the Union, nor any other organi- 

 zation, or any person do ought but make 

 trouble and expense, at the same time 

 damaging the interest of honey-pro- 

 ducers to the exact extent of their work. 

 I believe the above would be true even 

 if it were a fact that honey-producers 

 were adulterating hbney. If it were a 

 fact, it would be one which we couldn't 

 afford to have heralded to the public, 

 as would result from public prosecution. 

 If my neighbor bee-keeper is adulterat- 

 ing honey, he will very likely injure 

 himself far more than me, for nothing 

 does so much good, nor aids him so much 

 in his business, as to always place upon 

 the market a first-class article. The 

 converse of this proposition is true. Now 

 if my neighbor's adulterated article 

 doesn't "injure Ms trade, it will not in- 

 jure mine, only to the extent that his 

 work increases the supply, and I haven't 

 heard any bee-keeper, whether he be- 

 longed to the Union or not, endeavoring 

 I to prevent increase of supply, by object- 

 ing to the encouragement of persons to 

 go into the " bee-business." 



I am not afraid of my pursuit being 

 injured by the practice of any individual 

 member, said practice damaging the in- 

 dividual first and most. But waiving 

 this part of the argument, all the dam- 

 age that has been claimed, or that can 

 be conceived, is nothing as compared to 

 that produced by Inflating the mind of 

 consumers with the idea that our pro- 

 duct is generally adulterated. Mr. 

 Wiley advertised that idea very thor- 



oughly, as related to that honey which 

 goes to the consumer through the hands 

 of the city dealer, and that which is in 

 the comb was not excepted. While we 

 received immense damage from Mr. 

 Wiley's writings, that professional gen- 

 tleman had the kindness to leave one 

 avenue uncontaminated, viz.: that chan- 

 nel passing directly from producer to 

 consumer. It has been left to the envy, 

 jealousy and hatred of supply dealers 

 and their followers, to announce to the 

 honey-consuming world that the label 

 of "the producer is no guarantee of 

 purity." This they have done by in- 

 citing arrests in isolated places, by 

 writing letters to private individuals 

 who would spread false reports, by writ- 

 ing articles in bee-papers which are be- 

 ing eagerly copied in newspapers, and 

 last, by publicly changing the Constitu- 

 tion of the Bee-Keepers' Union so that 

 it may have the right to attempt what 

 in no case could it have the power to 

 accomplish, and which' can and does end 

 in nothing but casting suspicion upon 

 our product. All the bee-keepers' unions 

 this side of fairy-land couldn't stop one 

 little honey-producer from adulterating 

 all the honey he might be fool enough to 

 attempt to adulterate in 300 years. 



Manager Newman, an intelligent man 

 with lots of worldly knowledge, cor- 

 rectly declares that the present state of 

 the art of chemistry is not sufficient 

 proof of adulteration, and that the laws 

 in different States, where there are any 

 laws at all, are so varied that the Union 

 finds it impossible to cope with the sup- 

 posed practice ; and I believe he might 

 have added that in his good, sound judg- 

 ment, the best thing the Union can do, 

 as it can do no good, is to do no harm by 

 spending its time and money, and blaz- 

 ing to consumers that everybody — pro- 

 ducers and all — are adulterating our 

 product. 



Mr. Newman suggested that the Union 

 might succeed if we could have a "na- 

 tional" law, but he must have forgotten 

 what many others have done, in speak- 

 ing of this same subject, as applied to 

 various articles of food, that this gov- 

 ernment is the United States of America; 

 that they are united for certain jiur- 

 poses, and that as long as the unity, 

 that is, the general government, doesn't 

 punish its citizens for the crimes of mur- 

 der and stealing, it will not be very apt 

 to pay any attention to the adulteration 

 of honey, as long as it doesn't receive a 

 national revenue from that commodity. 



I have spoken upon this subject thus 

 at length, because I believe it to be, 

 above all others, the one just now con- 



