AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



521 



from " no-whei-e," and are put up by " no- 

 body." 



You say : " Let the war against adultera- 

 tion go on by all means, but let it be by 

 deeds, not words, that create a sentiment 

 against honey." Is that the way the laws 

 in regard to adulterating and counterfeit- 

 ing food products in this and other States 

 were obtained ? No ! about every paper 

 and publication throughout the State or 

 locality in which such laws were desired, 

 and every speaker at agricultural and other 

 such gatherings, raised the hue and cry all 

 along the line until even the average legis- 

 lator "smelt something in the air," and 

 prepared to move accordingly. As I look 

 at it, all reforms have been brought about 

 by a vigorous stirring-up policy, which is 

 advocated by 95 per cent, of prominent bee- 

 keepers in regard to this hydra-headed 

 monster — adulteration. 



DeWitt C. Matthews. 



Just a word more : Bro. Hutchinson does 

 not believe in '• exposing " the adulterators. 

 How can he hope to prosecute withont expos- 

 ing ? Why, prosecution is in itself the 

 biggest kind of exposure ! 



As to the Union not considering the evi- 

 dence against Mr. Heddon sufficient to con- 

 vict, we may say that was when the Union 

 had only Prof. Wiley's analysis, a year or 

 so ago. Since then, we believe, the Union 

 has not taken cognizance of the evidence 

 obtained in the last few months — the analy- 

 sis of Willard's " Heddon honey," for in- 

 stance. It would seem that the case is a 

 great deal stronger now than it was a year 

 ago. ^^^ 



Commeut on Hecldon's Reply. — 



Last week we gave Mr. Heddon's reply to 

 the charges against him as published in 

 Olea/dugs ; the following are the comments 

 upon Mr. H.'s reply, by both A. I. and E. 

 R. Root. Here is the comment by A. I. 

 Root: 



We are very glad indeed, Mr. Heddon, to 

 see you appeal to the public at large who 

 have purchased honey of you before, that 

 gave satisfaction. Here is a postal just 

 put into my hands : 



A. I. Root :— It doesn't seem as though you 

 are going to stop that cry of adulteration. If 

 you had, I should want to stop •'Gleanings." 

 You surely hit the nail on the head in the 

 Heddon honey. I bought two cases of him 

 several years ago, and [ then thought it was 

 '• not honey." 1 sent a sample to you by mail, 

 but it was broken In transit. G. F. Ayers. 



Atherton, lud., March 20. 



You say you shipped no impure honey to 

 Mr. Willard, nor to any other man, during 

 1893 and 1894. How about what you ship- 

 ped before 1893 and 1894 ? And furthermore, 

 I do not see that you state clearly that you 

 tteve)' adulterated. 



If it will damage bee-keepers materially 

 by making arrests, or publishing the names 

 of those selling glucose for honey, what in 

 the world are bee-keepers to do ? 



I am aware that S. T. Fish & Co., and 

 other commission men, have offered ex- 

 tracted honey in quantities at a low figure; 

 but so far as I know, no one has advertised 

 honey in a retail way as cheap as or 

 cheaper than you have done, /or the same 

 (jrade unci source. 



Had you been present at some of the re- 

 cent national conventions, especially the 

 one held in Washington, and that held 

 during the World's Fair, in Chicago, you 

 would have seen Prof. Wiley not only 

 warmly welcomed, but held in very high 

 esteem by the bee-keepers of our land. 

 Prof. Wiley may have been unwise in the 

 past, but he surely is the friend of all bee- 

 keepers now. 



You ask what good it will do the bee- 

 keepers of our land to be notified of these 

 things. It seems to me the answer is self- 

 evident. See contents of postal above. If a 

 bee-keeper and honey-producer has been 

 guilty of adulterating his honey with glu- 

 cose, I do not think he will follow it very 

 long after he has been publicly exposed 

 through the journals. This policy will help 

 to protect bee-keepers against this glucose 

 competition. 



The two cans of honey that are now in 

 our possession have a printed tag attached 

 to them, and just like other tags from you 

 direct. 



Why didn't we send you an advance 

 proof ? You yourself answer the question. 

 We wrote to you a year ago, once or twice, 

 telling you of the evidence that we then 

 had in our possession, and you wrote letters 

 to us, and to other parties, wherein, as 

 usual, you " lose your temper," etc. Yes, 

 indeed, we have a letter from you to 

 another party, wherein you refer to Prof. 

 Cook and ourselves as "fools," "silly 

 gang," "simpletons." In a recent com- 

 munication to us you accuse us of trying to 

 rob you of your rights, "of using the black- 

 mail system," etc. We do not see how you 

 could expect advance proofs under such 

 circumstances. 



If the chemists of our land are ignorant 

 and vicious, we should like to let the judges 

 of honey, and honey-producers, taste of the 

 stuff in those cans which came to us from 

 you through a third party as pure honey. 

 We know that honey from different locali- 

 ties varies, and that late fall honey is often 

 poor in any locality ; but out of the thou- 

 sands of samples that have been submitted 

 tons for inspection, we never yet tasted 

 any honey gathered by the bees, having 

 such an unmistakable flavor of corn syrup 

 as this. There is enough to it to go around, 

 and it speaks for itself plainer than words. 



A. I. R. 



Immediately following the foregoing 

 comment by Bro. A. I. Root, came these 

 paragraphs by E. R. Root: 



Mr. Heddon refers to the honey of Mr. 

 Jankovsky, from S. T. Pish & Co., that was 



