664 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Ueddou Fiu'tliei* Replies. 



The following we take from Gleanings for 

 May 15th, as we desire to give Mr. Heddon 

 opportunity to explain in full the charges 

 made against him in that paper: 



On page 335 we gave a brief synopsis of an article 

 sent in by Mr. Heddon; but the latter feels that he 

 should be allowed to speak for himself. Wishing at 

 all times to do him full justice, we have decided to 

 publish the article in question. To this we make no 

 reply because we do not desire to prolong the mat- 

 ter any longer than is necessary. 



DEAR Mr. ROOT:— As it seems to me your foot- 

 notes are unjust in their inferences, and neglect to 

 touch the principal arguments of my article, I de- 

 sire to refer to the matter again. 



Your first sentence regarding " those who have 

 purchased honey of me before," is not fair, because 

 I did not refer to persons who purchased honey of 

 me "before," but to those who purchased at the 

 same time, and both before and after, and out of 

 the same lot of that shipped to Mr. Willard and 

 others. You publish an entire copy of a postal card 

 from one G. F. Ayers. I do not remember Mr. 

 Ayers; and while it would not be strange that I 

 might forget a customer, 1 have been back over my 

 alphabetically filed orders for 1891, '92, '93, and '94, 

 and I cannot find the name. But I am glad you pub- 

 lished Mr. Ayers' card, because it places you under 

 honorable obligation to publish reports from others 

 of my customers. 



You asked how about honey that I shipped before 

 1893 and 1894. I have never shipped any adulter- 

 ated honey to any one; but your asking this ques- 

 tion Is " prima- facie " evidence that you are not 

 depending on chemical analysis, but hearsay, for 

 your suspicions. I have been apprised of the 

 source of your fancied evidence. 



You asked me to state "what in the world bee- 

 keepers are to do." The answer seems to be plain- 

 do the best we can. This brings us to the real point 

 at issue— the point I first began to discuss ats our 

 State convention,and which discussion you assumed 

 to be a defense of adulteration. If you do not agree 

 with me, that making arrests of members of any 

 class of honey-dealers, whether it be city dealers or 

 producers, will not stop adulteration, and thus do 

 no good, but through newspapers destroy the repu- 

 tation of our product in the minds of consumers, 

 why don't you arrest some one ? Two arrests have 

 been made in Ohio, and in both eases, I am sure, the 

 arrested parties were innocent. 1 might have con- 

 cluded that my honey had been removed, and other, 

 which was adulterated, placed in the cans, were it 

 not for the fact that I had been and am now quite 

 certain that the chemical analysis of the day is a 

 combination of honest error and conscious inability, 

 as proven in the Jankovsky case. Certainly, 1 was 

 well aware that the Fish honey was pronounced 

 slightly adulterated with sugar, and not largely 

 mixed with glucose. I thought of all this. But you 

 do not seem to see the point. The point is, that, 

 NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that " it was sugar 

 adulteration," and " very slightly," and " such adul- 

 tei'ation very difficult to determine," the chemist 

 and the court officials hesitated not, but have 

 secured their fees, and Mr. Jankovsky is some $75 

 out of pocket, and henceforth can never stand up in 



court and say he never was arrested and convicted. 

 Not only his reputation, but also his business has 

 been damaged. 



In your endeavor to lift up Mr. Fish with your 

 lever (" Gleanings "), using me for the fulcrum, it 

 seems to me you deal a terrible blow to courts and 

 chemists. Although the chemists were not able to 

 tell, they either didn't know they were not compe- 

 tent authority, or else they had no respect for the 

 rights of the citizen. My former reference was 

 nothing more nor less than to show that the pres- 

 ent science of chemistry is now convicting and 

 fining innocent people, and no amount of explana- 

 tion as to how their errors came about changes the 

 force of my citation. 



I next come to your statement as to what I would 

 have seen had I " been to the Washington and Chi- 

 cago bee-keepers' conventions, when Prof. Wiley 

 was warmly welcomed by bee-keepers." I wish I 

 had been there. 1 should be able to say, " I am glad 

 to meet you. Prof. Wiley. I beg of you to remember 

 that you are now shaking a consistent hand; I 

 never called you a 'liar.' Prof. W., let us sympa- 

 thize with each other; we have both been attacked 

 by bee-Journals. You are back in the ' band- 

 wagon,' please instruct me as to how yougot there!" 



I did not call Prof. Wiley a " liar," but I said he 

 either was one, or else he was at one time worse 

 abused by bee-journals than I am being now. 



I now come to the point of your having honey in 

 cans, and the cans in boxes, and the cover of the 

 box having tacked upon it one of my express tags. 

 I do not doubt it, because I put them on that way— 

 an easy way to imitate. The tag is no doubt mine; 

 but if it is nailed upon my cover, that cover resting 

 on my box, that box containing my can, the honey 

 in that can is not my honey provided it is not pure 

 and of first quality of its grade. (By this word 

 " my," I mean having once been mine.) I now mail 

 you a sample of my pure honey, the same that I 

 shipped to all my customers, and I desire that you 

 compare it with the honey in those cans, and then 

 return to me a sample of that in the cans you have. 

 You can return in the same mailing package, and I 

 enclose stamps for postage. Also please state la 

 " Gleanings " how they compare. 



In your next paragraph you bring into public 

 print what you claim 1 wrote in a private letter to 

 some one. I do not remember to whom I wrote 

 such words. I may have done so, however. We 

 will admit that I wrote those words in a private 

 letter to some person. Of course, we all know that 

 Prof. Cook is far from being a " fool," or " silly," 

 and that it requires nothing short of genius border- 

 ing upon the " consomate " to make so much of a 

 seeming case against me as you have done, with 

 nothing real for a ground-work. If I wrote those 

 words, I am sorry for the mistake, and must give as 

 my only excuse that I then had what I now have 

 in my mind, the thought that it is both silly and 

 foolish to hope for general benefit to bee-culture to 

 grow out of the persecution of honey-producers. On 

 the other hand, if the object is not to benefit the 

 bee-keepers, but to temporarily injure a competitor 

 in business, " foolishness " immediately changes to 

 conspiracy. However, speaking of your not send- 

 ing me proof , I see no logic, nothing wise and just, 

 in retaliating upon the " weak," " foolish," and 

 " criminal," by withholding .justice from them. I 

 very much admire the following quotation from a 

 prayer: " Lord, bless the wicked; thou has blessed 

 the good by making them good." 



