72 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



by those who have so foolishly advised 

 bee-keepers to adulterate their honey 

 by compelling the bees to store sugar ! 

 If this be "advanced bee-culture," the 

 less bee-keepers and all others have of 

 it, the better for them and the whole 

 world. 



We present here some of the many 

 letters received in reference to the sub- 

 ject, which we desire should be read 

 very carefully. The first was not in- 

 tended for publication, so we omit the 

 writer's name and address. We feel 

 certain he will not object to having it 

 appear thus : 



Friend Yokk : — When I received the 

 last Bee Journal, and saw the stand 

 you took on the sugar-honey question, I 

 felt like shouting "Good boy !" 



Many of my idols in apiculture have 

 fallen in the past year — those whose 

 judgment I most relied upon. Let them 

 now discuss the selling of glucose for 

 sugar, cotton-seed oil for lard, suet for 

 butter, and uphold it, too. They might 

 also include counterfeiting money — it is 

 as good as genuine until discovered to be 

 bogus. All are equally honest, I think. 



When I saw on page 849 of the Bee 

 Journal for Dec. 29th, the stand you 

 and Mr. Newman took, I could not help 

 writing and saying, "Shake !" All honor 

 to the American Bee Journal ! 



Minnesota, Dec. 31, 1892. 



Friend York : — I wish to commend 

 your course in the sugar-honey discus- 

 sion. I can see no good result whatever 

 from the discussion. Its principal use 

 has been to give hints to would-be imita- 

 tion-honey producers. 



The Devil does not need any aid. Can 

 we not profit by the experience of the 

 dairy people, in their fight with oleomar- 

 garine, etc. ? Very respectfully, 



Tiffin, 0. J. F. Moore. 



Friend York : — I notice that you are 

 ignoring the sugar-honey discussion. It 

 is a great surprise to me that any of our 

 leading bee-keepers should favor such a 

 business, and try to prove its advan- 

 tages. It would be the death-knell to 

 the bee-keeping interest of this country. 

 Respectfully, 



N. P. Aspinwall. 



Harrison, Minn. 



Dear Mr. Editor : — I beg to express 

 my satisfaction at the course taken by 

 the American Bee Journal in refer- 



ence to that very imprudent, ill-advised 

 discussion of the " sugar-honey " ques- 

 tion. The American Bee Journal, 

 since I have known it, has always been 

 the uncompromising foe of all forms of 

 adulteration, and has done invaluable 

 work toward its suppression. I regard 

 the proposed "sugar-honey" as one of 

 the worst forms of adulteration — worst, 

 because it emanates from the producers 

 themselves. Allen Pringle. 



Selby, Ont., Jan. 2, 1893. 



Mr. Editor: — What use is there to 

 fight adulteration of honey when profes- 

 sors and bee-paper men teach their con- 

 stituents how to adulterate, and tell'us 

 that sugar is honey after passing 

 through a bee's honey-sac ? This is the 

 most contemptible act that honest bee- 

 keepers have ever seen, or heard of. All 

 adulteration together, of honey, so far, 

 has not done as much damage, or made 

 and created as much suspicion. 



The newspapers already have gotten 

 hold of it. A lawyer (an old acquaint- 

 ance), to whom I have sold honey for 

 many years, said to me the other day, 

 " How much sugar have you sold me all 

 these years?" I asked him where he 

 read about it ? " Ha ! in one of my news- 

 papers," he replied. "I am going to 

 make my own honey after this." 



Then he explained to me that sugar 

 was honey ; that a certain professer and 

 his students had made experiments, and 

 found that no difference could be noted, 

 etc. Now, how are we going to stop the 

 slanderous talk of that professor and 

 that bee-paper man ? I have almost 

 lost confidence in men, and about decided 

 to keep bees without literature — so as to 

 keep cool and silent, and not get excited 

 when we have to see such lies in our 

 bee-papers. The only reason I subscribe 

 for a few bee-periodicals this year is, 

 that they are not all on that side, and I 

 felt good when I read your editorial and 

 noted your stand-point on this senseless 

 act. 



Every experienced bee-keeper knows 

 that sugar cannot be changed to honey 

 by the bees. It is sugar first, and sugar 

 last. It is a shame for learned men to 

 be so stupid — yes, we may say dishonest. 

 I may be a little harsh, but I cannot 

 help it. 



I am afraid our industry has received 

 a blow from which it will not recover 

 for many years, by this sugar-honey 

 swindle. Those who have advocated 

 the thing, should know better than to 

 threaten the destruction of honest bee- 

 keepers and honey-producers. What 



