AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



553 



"Willard asked Mr. Heddon himself to furnish 

 «n affidavit that said honey was pure, but 

 Mr. Heddon ignored the request — or, at 

 least, Mr. Willard received no response. In 

 answer to our inquiry regarding the honey 

 shipped by Mr. Heddon in 1893, he says he 

 never shipped any adulterated honey to 

 any one. 



Referring to the two cans of honey we 

 have in our possession, he admits the gen- 

 uineness of the tags, and that he has been 

 in the habit of attaching them in that way ; 

 but, assuming that the tags, cans, and box, 

 are his, he denies that the honey is adul- 

 terated ; or, if adulterated, that it ever 

 oame from him. He says he sends us a 

 sample of pure honey, and asks us to com- 

 pare it with this in the cans. Of course, 

 yve expected that the sample would taste 

 all right ; and it is greatly superior to that 

 in the cans. 



As to the cheap honey, he refers to B. T. 

 Pish & Co., as advertising honey from 4J^ 

 to 6 cents per pound, depending upon style 

 of package and quality. In a letter just 

 received from S. T. Fish & Co., they say 

 that tliis 4%-cent honey is in barrels, and 

 Southern stock at that, while the 6-cent 

 honey is the finest product. Some time ago 

 they wrote us that the honey market was 

 "very poor; and that, owing to the very 

 hard times, they could not begin to realize 

 anywhere near their old prices, and they 

 were afraid they would have to make low 

 offerings to dispose of what they had. But 

 Mr. Heddon has been offering cheap honey 

 for years back, and it was not Southern 

 stock, either ; nor were the times hard as 

 now. 



He refers to the test made by Prof. Cook 

 on the chemists, where 50 samples were 

 placed before them, some adulterated and 

 some not, with glucose, and which the 

 chemists recognized correctly in every 

 case, as not being conclusive to him. He 

 affirms that the test should be made by per- 

 sons who should "lay aside all desires as 

 to results." This is just exactly what was 

 done, If they had any desire to show that 

 the honey was adulterated, why did they 

 not show those samples that were pure, as 

 also adulterated ? But, no ; they correctly 

 picked out the pure from the "doctored " 

 samples. There was not and could not be 

 the least prejudice in this instance. 



Further, we call our readers to witness 

 that Mr. Heddon said that nineteen-twen- 

 tieths of his customers praised the honey 

 he shipped them ; and he (Heddon) offered 

 to show us the "original manuscript" to 

 prove it if we would publish it. The testi- 

 monials he sent were merely printed and 

 numbered, with neither date nor name ; and 

 as Mr. Heddon had offered to ful'nish the 

 original letters, proving all these testimo- 

 nials to be genuine, we told him that we 

 would publish them, or acknowledge their 

 genuineness. Now, did he do it ? We have 

 read his 11-page article, now in hand, over 

 carefully, but do not see any reference to 

 it; and as to the "original manuscript" 

 that he was to furnish, it has not yet made 

 its appearance. Perhaps he overlooked it. 



The rest of the article is concerned largely 



in defense of his statements made at the 

 Michigan State Convention ; and as he has 

 nothing new to offer, we do not refer to it 

 except to mention that he says he did not 

 defend the practice of mixing glucose. The 

 essay was published in the American Bee 

 Journal, and it speaks for itseK. 



Finally, we must say that we have no 

 more room for further discussion of this 

 matter. We certainly do not wish to do 

 Mr. Heddon an injustice; we are seeking 

 the truth, and the best good of the pursuit. 

 It seems to us he has had enough space 

 already ; and unless there should be some 

 very good reason, we should prefer to de- 

 vote our space to other matters. 



So far as the Bee Journal is concerned, 

 we can truly say with Bro. Root, that " We 

 certainly do not wish to do Mr. Heddon an 

 injustice; we are seeking the truth and the 

 best good of the pursuit." We do not see 

 any reason why any one would desire to 

 do an injustice to Mr. Heddon. Either he 

 did glucose or adulterate his honey, or else 

 he did not. It only remained for him to 

 jyrove his innocency, and that he should find 

 no difficulty in doing, if not guilty. 



Some may have looked upon this whole 

 matter as a piece of persecution, but cer- 

 tainly so far as the Bee Journal was con- 

 cerned, there was no such thought enter- 

 tained for a moment ; and we don't believe 

 that any such feeling prompted Gleanings to 

 undertake the exposure. 



We, also, regretted the seeming necessity 

 to occupy so much space with this subject 

 in these columns, but we felt it a duty to 

 present the statements of both sides of the 

 case to our readers, rather than to have 

 those of our subscribers, who also take 

 C^mmn^s, think that our " silence " on the 

 matter really meant " consent " to a prac- 

 tice that we have so fearlessly and unmer- 

 cifully fought in the past. 



Some may wonder what benefit will have 

 been gained after all the war of words is 

 over. Well, we should think that if Mr. 

 Heddon really had been adulterating honey 

 he would now do so no more ; and if he 

 never did practice it, he has had a good 

 chance to dispel the idea among some folks 

 who believed he had been adulterating, and 

 thus set himself right before them and the 

 world. 



Furthermore, it seems to us that this 

 agitation can but result in good to the pur- 

 suit, as it shows the public that bee-keepers 

 are as ready to denounce and expose one of 

 their own number if found guilty, as they 

 would a grocer or any one else who in- 



