AMERICAiSf BEE JOURNAL. 



665 



I have not said the chemists of our land are all 

 ignorant and vicious, although we all know enough 

 of mankind to know that chemistry, perched upon a 

 good salary, and well obscured from the masses, is 

 not necessarily always perfectly honest nor allwise. 

 We know one man has been fined heavily, and im- 

 measurably injured, through either the ignorance 

 or vice of chemists. 



You say you have enough of my honey that 

 speaks for itself, to go around. I say you haven't 

 enough of my honey to support one bee 15 seconds, 

 that, sent out as samples, would not do honor to me 

 as a producer, and to our business at large. I mailed 

 samples to many of my customers, and I do not re- 

 member a sample sent that did not bring an order. 

 If there are any of my customers who will say the 

 goods were not like sample, I want to hear from 

 them through "Gleanings!" but if such statements 

 should be made, I want to know, as I do in the case 

 of Mr. Ayers, why nothing was said to MB; and 1 

 further desire to have about 40 of my other custo- 

 mers state what they think of my honey, in " Glean- 

 ings." 



By re-perusing the Fish-honey advertisement, I 

 find it reads as follows: 



We offer you honey, put up in original packages, 

 as received from the apiary, at from 4% to 6 cents 

 per pound, depending on quality and style of pack- 

 ages. Can sell you any quantity you wish, from 60 

 pounds to a carload, samples mailed if so re- 

 quested. Will thank you for a response. 



Resp'y yours, S. T. Fish & Co. 



Above the above, on the card, is the following: 



We are agents for the Bee-Keepers' Association, 

 and any honey we sell we guarantee strictly pure 

 and unadulterated. 



The wording of this card exhibits confusion, and 

 that the firm is already on the defensive, does it 

 not? Mr. Fish is a scholarly man of business wis- 

 dom; and the way this card flutters, we would know 

 that not only the firm, but their customers, had 

 been hit. " From 4M to 6 cents," even in " eopound 

 lots." "Cheap." Is this honey (2 cents below the 

 lowest of my prices for the same grades) adulter- 

 ated because it is cheap, or cheap because the word 

 " adulterated " has been published too many times ? 



Your references to the test to which chemistry 

 has been put, are not at all conclusive to me. The 

 tests should be made by persons on one side who 

 will, for the time being, lay aside all desires as to 

 results. I am well satisfied that there are honeys, 

 pure from the blossoms, that, under the chemical 

 test, will answer the chemists' requirements for 

 glucose, and I have no doubt it can be proven by 

 honest experiment. I was a witness to one glucose 

 experiment at Lansing— one which has been cited 

 as a case proving the ease of detection. A portion 

 of reddish honey was divided into three parts— a 

 small part, medium part, and a larger part. White 

 confectioners' glucose was mixed with each, and 

 the shades of color afforded an unerring guess; for, 

 when brought in, we were told that one lot of honey 

 was mixed in different quantities, with equal 

 amounts of glucose. I wonder if all the other tests 

 were as severe as this one. And this test has been 

 cited in your paper to show the ease of detecting 

 glucose by taste. The glucose we have tasted in 

 our confectioner's shop here has no taste at all that 

 the aromatic flavors of honey will not annihilate at 

 once. 1 tasted of the Lansing experiments, and 

 could unerringly tell, by appearance and taste both, 

 which had the most glucose (the less of fiavor being 

 most diluted with the comparatively tasteless). I 



know that I have tasted pure honeys that I could 

 not tell from any one of these glucosed samples. If 

 others could, I could not; but I could unravel that 

 experiment with the greatest ease. When the 

 chemist is reallt tested, we shall then know 

 whether or not his reports are competent to fine and 

 send people to jail, or, what is worse, to public dis- 

 grace. I am far from having a desire that present 

 chemistry cannot detect glucose in honey with suffi- 

 cient certainty to warrant conviction; but, fully be- 

 lieving it to be true, I have a stronger desire that 

 no more honey-producers should be persecuted and 

 injured while all bee-keepers are also materially 

 damaged. 



Your statement that my utterances have defended 

 the practice, are wholly unfair. That is another 

 disputed question, I maintaining that they do not 

 defend the practice, and asserting positively that 

 such was far from my intentions. While I said that 

 bee-keepers' unions could not stop one little honey- 

 producer, the idea X wished to carry was that they 

 cannot stop the practice with anybody. What harm 

 can it do for me to make this statement to bee-keep- 

 ers when the city adulterators (all the adulterators 

 there are) know it full well beforehand, and after 

 the Union has previously, for a whole year, ad- 

 mitted it by its non-action ? When it was first pro- 

 posed to put this load upon the Union (an offspring 

 of my own, and to which I am greatly attached), 1 

 objected because I thought it would weaken and 

 destroy the already proven efBciency of the Union 

 in the line of work for which it was originated, and 

 I think so still. What better evidence of my origi- 

 nal statement, made at the time I opposed the 

 change in the Constitution, need I adduce, than the 

 fact, that more than a year has passed, and the 

 Union Board has proven by its actions that it dare 

 not even test the truthfulness of my assertion. Had 

 I been Mr. Jankovsky, and had I been arrested and 

 fined by any pure-food commission, bee-keepers' 

 union, or any once else, it would cost such commis- 

 sion, or union, or person, a very large sum before 

 they were through with me. 



The logical genius of law is a very different thing 

 from the prejudices of those who persist in the 

 adulteration cry. We do not differ, and never have 

 differed, upon the right and justice of adulteration j 

 you have only made it appear so; we differ greatly 

 as to policy of action, and we do not come any 

 nearer to the real point at issue, because of the ma- 

 licious prejudice growing out of your misunder- 

 standing or misrepresenting the true state of affairs. 

 This is the way it seems to me. Suppose we discuss 

 the real point at issue, as to what is best to do and 

 not to do, leaving personal allusions out of the case 

 for awhile, or, at least, placing them on another 

 page. 



Finally, since you have begun publishing con- 

 tributed evil words concerning me, are you willing 

 to publish several letters I have, stating, with gloves 

 off, what the writers think of you ? If you will open 

 a column for innuendoes against you and me, you 

 may come to the conclusion that both may be loved 

 for the enemies we have made. 



Bowagiac, Mich., April 2. JAMES Heddon. 



[The following is a copy of an affidavit sent us at 

 the same time.— Editor.] 



I, Charles Heddon, son of James Heddon, do here- 

 by swear that 1 took from the hives in my father's 

 two bee-yards, and in honey-house did extract all 

 of the surplus honey produced in said years, during 

 the years 1892 ana 1893; and, further, that I put all 

 of the said honey into 60-pound boxed tin cans, and 



