232 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



mixed with honey does not become 

 honey. In the second place, sugar and 

 glucose are not the same, so that even 

 if it could be proven right to mix sugar 

 with honey, that doesn't prove that it 

 would be right to thus mix glucose. 



You say : "It differs mainly in ap- 

 pearance." Does it? If there were 

 placed before me two bottles, one con- 

 taining pure honey and the other glu- 

 cose and honey, half and half, I'm sure 

 I could not be certain from the "appear- 

 ance " which was pure, and I don't be- 

 lieve you could. But 'I think I could 

 tell a decided difference in the taste, if 

 one bottle contained a mixture of glucose 

 and honey, and the other a mixture of 

 cane sugar and honey, even if the bees 

 had nothing to do with the latter. In- 

 deed to prove that there is a difference, 

 it is only necessary to quote the words 

 of your editorial, "Good testimonies say 

 that bees don't like glucose ^in their 

 honey any more than do people." And 

 we know that bees do like sugar. So 

 that sentence, "It differs mainly in 

 appearance — the results are about the 

 same," is entirely correct if we make 

 some sliglit verbal changes, so as to 

 make it read, " It differs not at all in 

 appearance — the results are widely dif- 

 ferent."* 



You ask, "Because they honestly be- 

 lieved that bees make honey out of 

 sugar, does that make it so?" I'll give 

 you a categorical answer — No. But it 

 makes a world of difference as to their 

 criminality in the case whether they 

 honestly believed it or not. 



Now let's see if we can't get down to 

 bed-rock. I am sorry that you did not 

 say in just so many words what was the 

 direct charge, but I think it may be 

 prettly clearly inferred from your say- 

 ing, " The question is not whether bees 

 m,ake honey or not, but whether the 

 publishing of the suggestion of feeding 

 sugar to bees for the production of honey 

 will not result in untold danger to floral 

 honey production." Not stopping to 

 consider a certain inconsistency that 

 may be lurking in those words, and put- 

 ting the matter in just as few words as 

 possible, confining it to a single case, I 

 think you and I would agree that the 

 charge is this : Prof. Cook gave it out 

 as his opinion that it would be a good 

 thing to feed bees sugar for them to 

 store as surplus. 



Now if that's the charge, then we 

 have something definite to talk about, 

 and if it isn't the correct charge, then 

 you say what is the charge, for I am not 

 trying to make the charge, only for the 

 sake of saving time trying to put it into 



specific form. You say, " It is another 

 mistake for any one to say that we ex- 

 pect them to state anything contrary to 

 their honest convictions." Good. Now 

 you're talking reasonably, and we may 

 yet see eye to eye. The accused thought 

 it would be a good thing to feed sugar 

 for surplus. That was his honest con- 

 viction, and you don't expect him to 

 state anything contrary to it. Further- 

 more he gave out or published that opin- 

 ion. But it was his honest conviction 

 that it would be for the good of bee- 

 keepers to publish what he believed to 

 be the truth, and you don't want him to 

 state anything contrary to that honest 

 conviction. 



Now there's the whole thing in a nut- 

 shell. He honestly said what he hon- 

 estly believed, and he cannot honestly 

 say he is sorry he believed what he 

 thought was truth, nor that he is sorry 

 he said what he honestly believed would 

 do good. 



But you intimate that he might make 

 "a manly expression of regret that a 

 stupendous mistake had been made." 

 Yes, he might do that. But you would 

 not publish it if he did. For it would be 

 something like this, "I regret exceed- 

 ingly, more than I can well express in 

 words, that my friends York and Miller 

 are so blinded by prejudice that" — but 

 about that time you'd stop him, and tell 

 him that you wanted him to regret what 

 he had himself said. But he'd tell you 

 that he c»uld hardly regret having said 

 the truth, and then he'd commence to try 

 to convince you that he was correct in 

 his belief, but you would tell him you 

 didn't want that discussed. But he 

 would tell you that you are allowing it 

 to be discussed, and would point you to 

 page 179, and ask you whether J. F. 

 Latham's article did not discuss it, as 

 also the article of Dr. McKinney, on 

 page 181, where, under the pretense of 

 not discussing it, he asks " permission 

 to make a few plain statements." Would 

 it not be entirely in order for Prof. Cook 

 to " make a few plain statements" in 

 reply ? No, you don't want him to, and 

 I don't want him to ; neither do I want 

 to see the other side discussed with no 

 chance for reply. 



In regard to that $50 and $100 which 

 is labeled "A Challenge," I think if you 

 will go out to — where is it, Hawthorne, 

 or Garfield Park? — the sports will tell 

 you that's a plain bet, and I don't think 

 you'll find Prof. Cook a "taker." I 

 don't think he ever gambles. 



It would be entirely like Prof. Cook to 

 think, "Well, if I had known how it 

 would be received, I doubt if I would 



