AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



489 



watered. You are all aware that no two 

 honeys taste alike. Honey from different 

 blossoms differs much in taste and appear- 

 ance, and most of you are likely aware of 

 the fact that honey from the same variety 

 of blossoms, in different localities, often 

 not more than 40 miles apart, tastes and 

 often appears very different. Those two 

 samples never came from my apiary, and 

 I afterward gained some evidence that 

 they were sent to Manager Newman by W. 

 D. Soper, of Jackson, Mich., who purchased 

 three cans of me Feb. 13, 1893, of my 1S03 

 crop. 



You state that Mr. Willard was fined $25 

 and costs — a total of .$64.85. Mr. Willard 

 was adjudged guilty by the court, solely 

 upon the chemical analysis report of Prof. 

 Albert W. Smith. You didn't state this in 

 your editorial, nor did you state the fact 

 that it was upon the evidence of another 

 chemical analysis by this same Prof. Smith 

 that Mr. Jankovsky was damaged in repu- 

 tation, and by the law of the State of Ohio 

 compelled to pay a heavy tribute to the 

 pockets of officials; but on the previous 

 page you state practically the same things 

 regarding Mr. Jankovsky. 



Before closing this article I will state 

 that I have shipped no impure honey to Mr. 

 Willard, nor any other man, during 18'J3 

 and 1894. If I had, I would not have re- 

 ceived the testimonials I did. When you 

 say that my " utterances " on the glucose 

 question give coloring to the statements of 

 the different chemists," yoa do not compli- 

 ment the science of chemistry, and yet, in 

 my opinion, you speak logically of the 

 science, but illogically and wrongfully of 

 me. I have never said one word to lend 

 you reason for such statement. Whenever 

 I have written or spoken upon the glucose- 

 honey-mixture question I have in every 

 instance stated that no bee-keeper could 

 afford to adulterate, and I didn't believe 

 bee-keepers were adulterating. I have said 

 that glucose was not poison, nor injurious 

 to the human system ; that 50 pounds of it 

 is consumed annually under the name of 

 "golden drips," and other syrups, to every 

 pound of honey eaten. I have also said 

 that, while it might be to our interests to 

 discourage its consumption in all forms, in 

 all of which it is a competitor to our pro- 

 duct, to go to complaining of bee-keepers, 

 and making arrests, or doing or publishing 

 anything sensational that will get into and 

 go the rounds of newspapers, will damage 

 us materially. I have said these things, 

 and I say them again, because I believe 

 them true; and, further, I believe that a 

 statement of these truths, if heeded, will be 

 of immense value to our pursuit. 



You used the term "cheap honey." I 

 have never sold honey at a price that could 

 be called "cheap," except for an article 

 superior to nearly all of the extracted 

 honey on the market. I inclose you my 

 price-list, which quotes the lowest figures I 

 have ever sold at ; and I have a late circular 

 before me, from S. T. Fish & Co., quoting 

 extracted honey at 4}4 cents. 



Prof. Wiley, of Washington, whom you 

 quote, it must not be forgotten, was for 



several years justly called a liar, and de- 

 stroyer of our business, which impeaches 

 his testimony, or else he was for years 

 worse abused than I am at this day by bee- 

 journals. 



You state that it seems to be " demanded 

 of you that the bee-keepers of the land be 

 notified of these things." Now, Bro. Root, 

 how do you think my friends and myself, 

 who positively know the truth, couple that 

 statement with the one that you "practice 

 and preach that kind of charity that is 

 kind and suffereth long V Admitting that 

 you believe the truth of what you have 

 published, even if it were true, 1 should like 

 to hear your explanation of how and what 

 good it will do the bee-keepers of the land 

 to be " notified of these things." I cannot 

 imagine. 



If I were told that any prominent bee- 

 keeper who had succeeded in the business, 

 making it buy him ^10,000 worth of other 

 property, besides increasing itself— that 

 this bee-keeper has always paid every debt 

 promptly ; that his word was as good as a 

 bank-draft in the commercial world; that 

 he had been honored with the highest ofBce 

 in the gift of the people of his municipality ; 

 that he had the intelligence to invent im- 

 plements and methods that were praised 

 by the brightest of his class ; was doing 

 something that was both "foolish" and 

 criminal, I wouldn't believe he was doing 

 it as long as there was a shadow of doubt ; 

 and when there was not, I should be com- 

 pelled to doubt the foolishness and crimi- 

 nality of the act, and be tempted to try it 

 myself; wouldn't you ? 



But what I am to do ? If the science of 

 chemistry is reliable, I can produce nothing 

 but adulterated honey in this locality, and, 

 consequently, must quit the business. If I 

 have wronged you, I have wronged myself 

 more by losing my temper over the incon- 

 sistent and damaging paragraphs which 

 have been printed concerning me, all of 

 which I knew were not true, and that may 

 be the reason you complain of my not giv- 

 ing "satisfactory answers." I wish to ask 

 you why you didn't send me advance 

 proofs of this printed matter, and in justice 

 publish this reply in connection therewith. 



" Now I have given the facts for just 

 what they are worth, and the reader may 

 draw his own conclusions." 



James Heddon. 



To the foregoing fro m Mr. Heddon, Bros. 

 A. I. and E. R. Root both reply in a long 

 foot-note, which we have not room for in 

 this issue, but will give next week. So far 

 lue have refrained from making any com- 

 ments on this subject, believing our readers 

 are quite able to draw their own conclu- 

 sions. What we want to do Jii'st, is to in- 

 form our readers of what is going on, so 

 they may be acquainted with the state- 

 ments of both sides of the case. Of course, 

 all our readers know what a hatred the 

 Bee Journal has for adulterators, and 

 even the very " appearance of evil." 



