600 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Some Mistakes Corrected. 



We have received the following from 

 General Manager Newman, as an ex- 

 planation of the stand taken by the Bee- 

 Keepers' Union in regard to the alleged 

 adulteration of honey by Mr. Heddon : 



Since the publication in Gleanings and 

 the American Bee Journal of Mr. Hed- 

 don's reply about adulteration, some 

 misunderstanding has resulted. As the 

 misconception concerns myself and the 

 National Bee-Keepers' Union (of which 

 I am General Manager), I desired to put 

 the matters in question in their proper 

 light, as well as to correct some mis- 

 takes. 



In the former matter Mr. Heddon's 

 statement was as follows : 



" When at the World's Fair last fall I 

 called on Thomas G. Newman, Manager of 

 the Bee-Keepers' Union. While there he 

 showed me two bottles of honey said to be 

 adulterated, and taken from one of my 



cans These two samples never 



came from my apiary, and I afterwards 

 gained some evidence that they were sent 

 to Manager Newman by W. D. Soper, of 

 Jackson, Mich.," etc. 



Some readers received the impression 

 that I gave him the information — not 

 noticing the words : " I afterwards 

 gained some evidence that they were 

 sent," etc. 



As I have had no correspondence of any 

 kind with Mr. Soper for several years, 

 and received no honey (either pure or 

 adulterated) from him at any time, I 

 could not have given Mr. Heddon any 

 such impression. I therefore wrote to 

 him inquiring if he intended such an in- 

 terpretation. He replied thus : 



"No, sir. I haven't said a word about 

 you in connection with Mr. Soper ! Not a 

 word ! Read again what I did say in Olecm- 

 ings," etc "I received my impres- 

 sion that W. D. Soper sent you the samples 

 from an anonymous letter from the eastern 

 part of this State, mailed on a railroad 

 train, and printed with red ink. I never 

 could get the least idea who sent it.'' 



This indisputably settles that matter, 

 and I will pass to the next point. The 

 American Bee Journal, on page 520, 

 copied from the Review these words : 



" Take the case of Mr. Heddon for in- 

 stance. The Union did not consider that 

 there was sufficient evidence to convict,'' 

 etc. 



The editor of the American Bee Jour- 

 nal commented on this statement thus : 



"As to the Union not considering the 

 evidence sufficient to convict, 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 analysis of ' Willard's 

 honey,' for instance. It would seem that 

 the case is a great deal stronger now than 

 it was a year ago." 



With due deference, I must say that 

 I cannot see wherein the case is stronger 

 now than it was a year ago. Certainly 

 the analysis of the " Willard honey " is 

 no more reliable than that made by the 

 United States Chemist, Prof. Wiley, who 

 stands at the head of the profession ! 

 To show that it is in reality tveaker, I 

 have only to state that the same chemist 

 analyzed the " Jankovsky honey " and 

 pronoanced it adulterated with sugar, 

 when another equally good chemist 

 made an analysis of the same honey, 

 and pronounced it pure! This is but 

 confusion worse confounded ! To rely 

 upon such evidence in court, to convict, 

 would be extremely hazardous ! 



As General Manager of the Union I 

 placed all the facts before the Advisory 

 Board, asking for instructions how to 

 proceed in the case and received replies 

 from every member. Nearly every one 

 cautioned me not to undertake to prose- 

 cute the case unless I felt reasonably 

 sure that the evidence was sufficient to 

 convict. 



This correspondence was then sub- 

 mitted to the President, and his advice 

 requested. Without beti'aying any con- 

 fidence between the executive officers, I 

 think I may say that the legal advice 

 given by President Taylor was sou7id ; 

 I fully concurred in his recommendation, 

 and carried it out. It is in my posses- 

 sion in writing (as well as the corres- 

 pondence with the Advisory Board), and 

 if necessary to defend the Union, con- 

 sent can no doubt be obtained to publish 

 it. As these are private consultations 

 between executive officers, the communi- 

 cations must so remain unless permis- 

 sion is given for publicity. Until then 

 the General Manager will shoulder all 

 the blame which unwise enthusiasts may 

 wish to load on the Union for non-action 

 in the matter. 



Since then no application has been 

 made to the Union to prosecute Mr. 

 Heddon -except that he has himself very 

 strongly urged the Union to prosecute 

 him in order to prove his innocence — a 

 thing not contemplated by the Contitu- 

 tion, and one which would in all proba- 

 bility not be sanctioned by its members. 

 At least, before such an innovation is 



