620 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Ilie Tallc Aljoiit Adult eratioii. 



—In the April Beview, Bro. Hutchinson has 

 quite a lengthy editorial on "The Talk 

 About Adulteration," in which he reviews 

 the efforts that Gleanlufjs and the Bee Jour- 

 nal have put forth for years in " exposing" 

 and condemning the adulteration of honey. 

 Bro. H. doesn't believe in "exposing" 

 adulterators, but urges "prosecution." 

 Here is his idea of the matter: 



Theft, counterfeiting, and all forms of 

 crime and misdemeanors are held in check, 

 not by exposing them, but by heavy penal- 

 ties, either of fine or imprisonment 



The only effect of exposing such men when 

 they are engaged in the adulteration of 

 food products, is that of prejudicing the 

 consumer against said product Con- 

 tinued "exposures" are only continued 

 proofs to the public that its surmises are 

 correct. How any sane man can doubt 

 that such a course is terribly damaging to 

 our pursuit, is past my comprehension. 

 * * * * * 



I am aware that there would be consid- 

 erable difficulty in furnishing absolute 

 proof of adulteration, and for this reason, 

 if for no other, I should favor prosecution 

 instead of exposure. In prosecution every- 

 thing must be jyfuven,, or there is no case ; 

 in " exposure " there is the temptation to 

 report some suspicious circumstance " for 

 what it is worth, and allow the public to 

 draw its own conclusions." Take this case 

 of Mr. Heddon's, for instance, the Union 

 did not consider that there was sufficient 

 evidence to convict. If there is not suffi- 

 cient evidence to warrant prosecution, 

 there is not enough for exposure. 



As will be noticed, we have not copied all 

 the editorial, but we have given enough to 

 pretty clearly show the position taken by 

 the Review. 



According to the above quotation, Bro. 

 Hutchinson doesn't believe in "exposing" 

 the fraud of adulteration, but rather that 

 " prosecution " is preferable. We'd like to 

 know how in the world he would "prose- 

 cute" a criminal without "exposing" 

 him ! Why, you've got to expose him, or 

 make the charge, before you can arrest or 

 prosecute ! At least that is what we sup- 

 posed would be the necessary procedure. 

 We may be wrong in this, but think not. 

 I The whole tenor of \A\a.t Review editorial 

 i is, almost wholly in accord with the position 

 taken on the subject of adulteration by 

 James Heddon — " if we c&nnot jjrevent adul- 

 teration, the best thing we can do is to keep 

 still." But we don't believe in "keeping 

 still." and letting wrong-doing and crime 

 continue according to "its own sweet will." . 



No, sir! we don't believe that is the way to 

 deal with any evil, and especially with the 

 adulteration of food products. 



We believe in condemning and uncover- 

 ing wickedness, and bringing it out into 

 broad daylight, where its hideousness and 

 shame-facedness may be seen. In other 

 words, we believe in giving evil the biggest 

 "exposure''' possible, so as to aid those 

 whose duty it is to arrest and tJieti " prose- 

 cute. '^ 



In the last number of the Michigan 

 Farmer, is a splendid article on the subject 

 of " Honey Adulteration," particularly re- 

 ferring to the " hush-up policy " proposed 

 by a. few people, the Farmer editor being 

 among them, to whom the article replies. 

 It was written by Mr. DeWitt C. Matthews, 

 of Michigan, and is so sound in the stand 

 taken and arguments advanced, that we 

 are led to extract the following : 



As it appears to me, you lose sight en- 

 tirely, in your reply, of the main point at 

 issue, viz. : the policy of spreading broad- 

 cast such items as are obnoxious to 90 per 

 cent, of the bee-keepers of these United 

 States, and I may say of the world. Your 

 reply is, as it appears to me, wholly de- 

 voted to establishing the facts that there 

 are a certain few bee-keepers who advocate 

 a hush-up policy, and that the analysis will 

 not alwiii/s show the exact amiuut of foreign 

 matter in adulterated honey. Both are 

 granted, and I have nowhere intended to 

 deny them. But I do claim these facts to 

 be substantially true : first, that not 5 per 

 cent, of the bee-keepers of the United 

 States and Canada are advocating the 

 hush-up policy ; and, second, that chemical 

 analysis is practically a proof of the purity, 

 or otherwise, of honey — a proof relied upon 

 both by individuals and courts of justice. 



I can recall but one leading apiar- 

 ist in this State who has right along advo- 

 cated the hush-up policy, and he is now 

 meditating upon the fact that "The way 

 of the transgressor is hard," for some of 

 his honey, has lately been analyzed and 

 found to be, " undoubtedly adulterated 

 with at least 50 per cent, of glucose.'' [See 

 report of H. W. Wiley on page 456. — Ed.] 



If the Wayne county bee-keeper 



mentioned has established a reputation for 

 honesty and truthfulness, then a label on 

 each package of his honey, containing, over 

 his name, a guarantee of its purity, should 

 have been satisfactory. The grocer, in all 

 such cases, would be able to satisfy the 

 would-be purchaser of the reliability and 

 standing of the producer. There should be 

 no trouble in such cases of a buyer getting 

 just what he calls for. Honey-buyers may 

 as well learn the fact that they had better 

 purchase the honey produced by local bee- 

 keepers who dare to put upon each package 

 a guarantee of its purity, and give the " go- 

 by " to all those fa,ncy packages that come 



