THE BEE-KEEERS' REVIEW. 



115 



HOW TO REPORT CROOKED OR SHAKY 

 FIRMS. 



Quite a little is now lieing said in some 

 of the journals regarding the difficulty of 

 reporting commission firms who deal in 

 honey, but are not desirable houses — that 

 is, they may be slow pay, or something 

 like that, even if not downright dishon- 

 est. The difficulty is that if we say such 

 or such a firm is dishonest, we at once 

 lay ourselves libable to prosecution for 

 libel. We may know to a moral certain- 

 ty that a certain firm is not honest, or 

 has some other very undesirable trait, 

 but to prove it in a court of law might be 

 very difficult — certainly very expensive. 

 For this reason a publisher has to be very 

 careful what he says about a dealer. 

 Under these circumstances some publish- 

 ers have been hinting at the " local hab- 

 itation and name " of a dishonest firm. 

 Such hints as these do very little good. 

 If we can't tell the uiDne of a crooked 

 firm we might about as well keep still. 

 Let the name of the firm be given, and 

 then do the hinting in regard to its un- 

 desirable traits. Of course, this would 

 have to be done very cautiously, but it 

 can be done. To illustrate: there is a pa- 

 per published at St. Paul, Minnesota, un- 

 der the title of the Publisher's Guide, 

 that makes a specialty of looking after 

 the standing and character of advertisers, 

 and reporting the same in [^its columns 

 for the benefit of publishers. The firm- 

 name is alzvays given; and then, by read- 

 ing between the lines, the publisher must 

 be dull, indeed, who can not draw a cor- 

 rect conclusion. This company has re- 

 presentatives in all of the large cities, or 

 sends them wherever it is necessary, and 

 these representatives report in regard to 

 all suspicious-looking firms. A publish- 

 er would lay himself open to the charge 

 of libel if he should say that a certain 

 firm was to be avoided because it was dis- 

 honest, or cecause it was lacking in capi- 

 tal, or because its methods were undesir- 

 able, etc., but a representive of the paper 

 can call at the firm's place of business and 

 tell exactly what he sees, and in the tell- 



ing can conve}- a correct impression, yet 

 there will be nothing in his report that 

 can be constructed as libel. I call to 

 mind one case, and will give it as an 

 illustration. vSome firm was advertising 

 with a great spread. The representative 

 of the Publisher's Guide found the office 

 up several flights of stairs, in the back 

 part of the building. There was an old 

 desk, a few old chairs and tables and 

 some girls busy mailing circulars. The 

 representative told exactly what he saw, 

 and then added " but, of course, all this 

 does not prevent a man from paying his 

 bills. " There is nothing in all this 

 that could give a chance for proscu- 

 tion, but where is the publisher that would 

 give credit to this firm after reading this 

 report? The Guide frequently calls at- 

 tention to the fact that, owing to the 

 libel-laws, the utmo.st caution must be 

 employed in reporting all firms; but if its 

 readers will use good common sense and 

 a little bit of shrewdness, there is little 

 danger of being caught by a fake adver- 

 tiser. I am satisfied that a similar course 

 might be followed by our bee-journals. 

 Let them give the name of a dishonest 

 firm, and then say samething that may 

 be understood by reading between the 

 lines. 



HOW TO M.\KE MONEY PRODUCING 



There. Isn't that an attractive title? 

 That's what we all wish to know about. 

 If I can do justice to the title, I am all 

 right. I'll tell you what put me in mind 

 of it. It was reading in Gleanings the 

 account of E. R. Root's trip down East 

 last fall. Among other bee-keepers whom 

 he visited was Mr. W. L. Coggshall. He 

 did a good thing for Gleanings when he 

 visited Mr. Coggshall and wrote of what 

 he saw. I have had the pleasure of meet- 

 ing Mr. Coggshall a few times at conven- 

 tions; and he has always impressed me 

 as being one of the shrewdest of shrewd 

 men. He is genial and companionable, 

 and all that, but it has always seemed to 



