200 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



don't. Shut up." They shut up, and 

 stay shut up, and you're not satisfied. 



Now will you formulate in words 

 what you think our mistaken friends 

 ought to say ? They have a certain be- 

 lief that I think erroneous, and yet may 

 they not be just as honest in their be- 

 lief as I ? Have you proved that their 

 belief is wrong ? 



You say, " We bear no malice toward 

 them, but we feel that they have made 

 a mistake that they should hasten to 

 correct." Candidly, I don't believe you 

 bear any malice, but I ^hink others do 

 believe it, and think they have grounds 

 for their belief. You want them to 

 " hasten to correct" their "mistake." 

 Now how do you want them to correct 

 it? Do you want them to say, "We 

 were mistaken in our views ?" But they 

 don't think so. Do you want them to 

 lie? What do you want anyhow? Do 

 you remember that at one time A. I. 

 Root thought it would be a good thing 

 to feed glucose ? Then everybody called 

 out, "Stop; it will hurt the business." 

 Then he stopped. Did he get down on 

 his marrow bones and " hasten to cor- 

 rect his mistake?" No, he just stop- 

 ped, and no one wanted him to do any- 

 thing else. Now these brethren have 

 stopped ; hadn't you better stop ? 



C. C. Miller. 



Did you ever read so many questions 

 in all your life ? Why, one would think 

 that our good Doctor would turn com- 

 pletely into a regular interrogation 

 point ! We think he fully appreciates 

 the questionableness of the subject he's 

 asking about, and that may account for 

 his numerous "categorical " inquiries. 



We never thought of "choking off" 

 the Doctor by calling him "kind-heart- 

 ed." We have heard of " killing people 

 with kindness," but somehow we don't 

 think that kind of "murder" is very 

 effective. We wouldn't like to try that 

 on a mule, at any rate — but may be that 

 is what he is trying to do with us. Per- 

 haps we are rather mulish — but we be- 

 lieve mules, sometimes, have their ad- 

 vantages. 



As to repenting " just because some- 

 body calls you names," we would say 

 that we didn't know anybody was called 

 names ; but even if they had been, there 

 likely would be a good cause for it. 

 After all that has been printed in the 



Bee Journal on this subject, we are 

 surprised that any one should question 

 the wrong done by the utterances of the 

 sugar-honey people. If they haven't 

 seen the wrong yet, they must be " as 

 blind as those who won't see." If bee- 

 keepers can conscientiously feed sugar 

 to bees to be stored in combs, and then 

 sell it for honey, may they not almost as 

 consistently mix glucose with extracted 

 honey, and sell it for pure honey ? It 

 differs mainly in appearance — the re- 

 sults are about the same. 



We quite agree with the Doctor that 

 " the trouble is that the sugar-honey 

 idea wasn't switched off onto a side- 

 track long before it was, and quietly 

 left there." The Bee Journal thought 

 it had succeeded in getting the "idea" 

 safely side-tracked over a year ago, but 

 its friends wouldn't let it stay side- 

 tracked. We are not to blame for their 

 running it on the main line again, and 

 causing a regular smash-up. All 

 " wrecks " must be cleared away, how- 

 ever, no matter who is responsible for 

 the accident. 



No, sir ; we're not " mad with rage ;" 

 and are "prohibition" enough both in 

 principle and practice to always " look 

 at the thing [any thing] straight !" We 

 never see things " double," if that's 

 what you mean. Just because " these 

 brethren honestly believed that bees make 

 honey out of sugar " — does Lhat make it 

 so ? If their statements result in the 

 great harm to the production of honest 

 honey, that thousands of the best bee- 

 keepers really believe it will, then we 

 would say, yes, it was criminal for them 

 to say what they did. A bee-keeper may 

 " honestly believe " that mixing glucose 

 with honey and then selling the mixture 

 as " honey " is right — but then all other 

 conscientious bee-keepers, who have a 

 speck of morality left, know that it isn't 

 right. 



Shutting up, and staying "shut up," 

 will never counteract the evil effects of 

 what was published before the "shut up' 

 admonition was heeded. " What is writ, 

 is writ," and you can't "unwrit" it. 



