1894 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



197 



*^ery speedily asphyxiate the animal. Now, 

 ihe beauty of the whole thing is, that the rats, 

 jr whatever the varmints are, are not only 

 juickly killed, but are buried in a grave of their 

 nvn making; and, unlike the use of poisons 

 listribut>''d around promiscuously, there is no 

 ^mell arising from dead rats in inaccessible 

 jlaces under buildings and elsewhere. Mr. 

 Tyrrell tells us that whole villages of prairie- 

 logs have been depopulated with thebisulpliide. 

 Not only can rats and prairie-dogs be sent to 

 ;he happy burrowing-grounds by the B. Carbon 

 Route, butsknnks, ground-squirrels, and musk- 

 -ats. Bisulphide of carbon costs at the drug- 

 stores about 40 cts. a pint, and a little of it goes 

 1 good ways. 



DISCUSSING BEE-PAPERS. 



The following appears in the last A. B. J.: 



Discussing bee-papers at conventions is an idea 

 iientioned in one of the Jaiuiary Re ri'eir's editorials. 

 Here is what Bro. Hutchinson thinks about it: 



Bee-.ionrnals are seldom discussed at bep-conven- 

 tions. there being- a feeling that it is not good taste 

 —that the commendation of one journal is a reflec- 

 tion upon tlie editors of tlie others. Hives, smokers, 

 :ioney -knives, comb foundation of the different 

 makes, non-swarmers, self-hivei's, in short, every 

 thing pertaining to bee culture, are freely discussed, 

 (vitli no consideration wliatever for the feelings of 

 the inventor or manufacturer. Wliere is the con- 

 ^istenf-y ? 



Tlien. aa-ain. one .iournal may excel in one par- 

 ticular, another in some otlier direction, and bring- 

 ing out these points might not be any disparage- 

 ment to any journal, yet would aid bee-keepers in 

 their choice of journals. Tlie idea that a bee-jour- 

 nal, or some feature of it, must never be commend- 

 ed, criticised, or discussed in a convention, is more 

 a fashion than one of good sense. 



Now, here's a chance for an honest difference of 

 opinion, and we dare say that Bro. H. stands almost 

 alone in his view of the matter. Of course, tliat's 

 all right; i"e stand nearly alone sometimes, but this 

 time we think the majority are witli us. 



Judging from that Review editorial, bee-papers 

 would be fit subjects for experiment stations to test, 

 the same as any other bee-keeping utensil or neces- 

 sity. Now, we'll suppose all of them were sent to 

 the Michigan station to be tested. Bro. Taylor 

 would l^egin the work, and he'd find that the Review 

 is the only one that publishes liis reports of experi- 

 ments, or those that do copy them won't give what 

 he considers propfr credit; therefore the Review is 

 the best bee-paper— for Bros. Taylor and Hutchin- 

 son. Certainly, no one would question that. 



Brethren, we are ready at anytime to have the 

 Bee Jinirnn} discussed with the rest, but what good 

 would come of it ? You might as well discuss the 

 character of John Jones, or Mrs. Grundy; but what 

 would be gained in so doing ? 



When the item first appeared in the Re^)icw. 

 we called to mind how unfavorably the discus- 

 sion of bee-journals was received at conven- 

 tions we have attended; particularly at the 

 Keokuk meeting of the North American. The 

 avenuje run of bee-keepers feel that they are 

 not competent to make suggestions regarding 

 the editorial conduct of a bee-journal ; at least, 

 so say our readers. While they can run a bee- 

 hive—are able to judge of its merits or de- 

 merits, and how it should be constructed, they 

 do not feel the same " at-homeness " on the bee- 



journal question. But why is the subject of- 

 fensive? l»erhaps because they think the de- 

 sire to have journals discussed is accompanied 

 by the desire to have some particular periodi- 

 cal boomed. While the same might be partial- 

 ly true of hives, the fact is, any one hive of 

 merit can be made by a score of supply-dealers 

 (if not patented); in fact, can be made by any 

 bee-keeper possessed with mechanical talent; 

 but there is not on(^ bee-keeper in a thousand 

 who can make a good bee-journal. In saying 

 this we do not wish to be construed as believing 

 that Bro. Hutchinson wants to boom his paper 

 at conventions. 



MR. HEDDON AGAIN, ON GLUCOSE ADULTEU- 

 ATION. 



On page 104 we criticised Mr. Ileddon for cer- 

 tain utterances of his at the Michigan State 

 Bee-keepers' Convention. Now that the full 

 text of his paper, as it appears in the Americnn 

 Bee Journal, is before us, it would be no more 

 than right to publish just exactly what he does 

 say. It will be unnecessary to give the whole 

 paper, but only that portion of it which we es- 

 pecially criticised. Here it is: 



The Bee-keepers' Union was organized for de- 

 fense of Ijee-keepers, and it did its worK nobly; but 

 last year a few believed it to be best that the Union 

 should attack its own members witli the cry of 

 " adulteration." It would seem to me that any bee- 

 keeper with any foresight could readily perceive 

 that in no case could the Union, nor any other or- 

 ganization, nor any peisf)n, do aught but make 

 trouble and expense, at the same time damaging 

 the interest of honey-producers to the exact extent 

 of their work. I believe the aljove would be true 

 even if it were a fact that honey-pnjducers were 

 adulterating honey. If it were a fact, it would be 

 one which we couldn't' afford to have heralded to 

 the public, as would result from public prosecu- 

 tion. If my neighbor bee-keeper is adulterating 

 honey, he will very likely injure himself far more 

 than me, for nothing does so much good, nor aids 

 him so much in his business, as always to place 

 upon the market a /f/xN'^r-NN article. The converse 

 of this proposition is true. Now, if my neighbor's 

 adulterated article dotsn't injure 7(is trade, it will 

 not injure mine, only to the extent tiiat his work 

 increases the supply, and I haven't heard any bee- 

 keeper, whether he belonged to the Union or not, 

 endeavoiing to prevent increase of s\ipply by ob- 

 jecting to the encouragement of persons to go into 

 ithe "l^ee-business." 



I am not afraid of my pursuit being injured by 

 the practice of any individual member, said prac- 

 tice damaging the individtiai first and most. But 

 waiving this partof the argument, all the damnge 

 that has lieen clainiefl, or that can be conceived, is 

 nothing as comiuired to that produced by inflating 

 the mind of consuimis wiih the idea that our prod- 

 uct is gentM-ally adulterated. 



[He next pays his respects to Prof. Wiley, and 

 then adds:— Ei).] 



It has been left to the envy, jealousy, and hatred 

 of supply-dealers and their followers, to announce 

 to the honey-consuming world that the laloel ()f 

 "the producer is no guarantee of purity."* This 

 they have done 1 y inciting arrests in isolated 

 places; by writing letters to private individuals who 

 would spread false reports; by writ ing articles in 

 bee-papers which are being eagerly copied in news- 

 pa|)ers, and. last, by publicly changing the consti- 

 tution of the Bee-keeper.s' Union so tliat it may 

 l)ave the right to attempt what in no case could it 

 have the jiower to accomplish, and which can and 

 does end in nothing b\it casting suspicion upon our 

 l)roduct. All the bee-keepers' unions this side of 



f » If there is a denier wlin '•has announced to the honey- 

 oonsiiraintr world that the label of the producer is no guaran- 

 tee of purity," we did not know it.— Ed.1 



