AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



T3 



good will a " Pure Food Bill " do under 

 these circumstances ? Ridiculous ! 

 Yours very truly, 



C. Theilmann. 

 Theilmanton, Minn., Jan. 2, 1898. 



We shouldn't wonder if your blood 

 began to "boil " before you half finished 

 reading the foregoing letters. Ours did ; 

 aud then we felt sorry for those who had 

 been advocating the practice, and who 

 were so short-sighted and careless ; for, 

 personally, we have respected them so 

 highly, and long ago tried to show at 

 least one of them the error of his way in 

 this matter. We endeavored to make 

 clear to him the folly and great harm of 

 the thing, though we felt all the time 

 that he should know better. We think 

 they all know better 7iow, and no mis- 

 take about it, either ! 



Although having said what we have 

 above, we want to say right here, that 

 we do not believe that any one of those 

 who have championed this unfortunate 

 course intended to injure the business of 

 honey-production ; but the evil has been 

 done, nevertheless, and nothing that 

 they can do now, can possibly prevent 

 the untold injury that must inevitably 

 result to the industry of bee-culture. 

 How much better it would have been to 

 have " kept in the middle of the road," 

 than to have permitted themselves to be 

 " switched ofE " on such a dangerous 

 " side-track." 



But what good to lock the stable after 

 the horse is stolen ? Why cry over spilt- 

 milk? The only thing that can be done 

 now is to try to counteract the evil 

 effects of the whole pernicious affair, and 

 try to " grin " while bearing the conse- 

 quences, which cannot help being so 

 universally disastrous to the pursuit of 

 bee-keeping. 



Let all sincere and honest honey-pro- 

 ducers stand together, and victory over 

 all such slanders — and even over the 

 Devil himself — will yet be theirs. 



After the foregoing was in type, we 

 handed a proof of it to the General 

 Manager of the Union, who writes thus : 



Friend York : — I have read the proof 

 you gave me, and most fully endorse the 

 positions taken by you and your corres- 

 pondents upon the sugar-honey question. 



The degredation brought upon honey- 

 producers by this " sugar-honey " abomi- 

 nation, is almost unbearable. The dis- 

 cussion of the subject is inexcusable, 

 since it was closed last spring by the 

 frowns of apiarists. To revive it at this 

 time is a crime as well as a blunder. If 

 it is right to feed sugar and compel the 

 bees to store it in combs in poor seasons, 

 why is it not right all the time ? It can't 

 be right. It is a fraud practiced upon 

 the bees ; it would compel the bee- 

 keeper to be dishonest, and it would be 

 a dishonorable, fraudulent trick played 

 upon consumers. 



One heresy leads to another. The 

 argument is : If bees nkike honey, and 

 it is partly-digested nectar — then that 

 nectar may be sugar or glucose at will I 

 But that is all bosh ! We all know that 

 it is no such thing ! It is precisely the 

 same after having been stored that it 

 was before, and the bees neither digest 

 nor make it into honey. 



As Manager of the Bee-Keepers' 

 Union, I have received a perfect shower 

 of such letters as those you have printed. 

 The instigators of this nefarious swindle 

 have "sown to the wind," and are now 

 "reaping the whirlwind." 



Just think of a person asking to have 

 the Constitution of the Union amended 

 so as to fight adulteration, and within a 

 month to be advising bee-keepers to 

 adulterate their honey with sugar ! ! It 

 is monstrous for him to say : " I have 

 no doubt that sugar-syrup honey will be 



produced largely next year I have 



no fear of a market." Away with such 

 lollipop bosh ! 



If the National Bee-Keepers' Union is 

 to prosecute adulterators, and I have 

 anything to do with it, its most energetic 

 work shall be to prosecute to the full 

 extent of the law, any who may dare to 

 offer for sale as honey any of that sugar- 

 syrup swindle. 



Consumers must not be trifled with. 

 Their butter must be made from pure 

 cow's milk, and their honey must be 

 pure nectar from the flowers ! " Sugar- 

 syrup "must be sold under that name, 

 not honey — just as the law requires 

 oleomargarine to be sold under its 

 proper name — not butter ! With the 

 Paddock " Pure Food Bill " as a United 

 States law, these and all other degrad- 

 ing swindles shall " bite the dust." 



Thomas G. Newman. 



Chicago, Ills., Jan. 13, 1893. 



