1894 



(^LKANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



377 



freight. These 13 cans ar(> now in my honey- 

 house, just as they arrived from Mr. Wiilard, 

 and the honey is candied solid.* This is all 1 

 know about the Wiilard honey. 



Now, who is the well-l<nown bee-l<eeper who 

 purcliased the two cans of lioney and sent the 

 iillidavit? When at the World's Fair last fall I 

 fiillrd on Thos. (1. Newman, Manager of the 

 Iti't'-keepers' Union. While there he showed 

 nic two bottles of honey said to be adulterated, 

 and taken from one of my cans. Now, I do not 

 pit'tend to be able to detect glucose in honey, 

 by any method whatever: but the sample 

 shown by Mr. Newman gave me the impression 

 of being pure basswood honey that had been 

 taken from the hives before it should have been, 

 and very "green," or else had been watered. 

 You are all aware that no two honeys taste 

 alike. Honey from difJerent , blossoms differs 

 much in tasie and appearance, and most of you 

 are likely aware of the fact that honey from 

 the same variety of blossoms, in different local- 

 ities, often not more than 40 miles apart, tastes 

 and often appears very different. Those two 

 samples never came from my apiary, and I aft- 

 erward gained some evidence that they were 

 sent to Manager Newman by W. D. Soper, of 

 Jackson. Michigan, who purchased three cans 

 of me, Feb. 13. 1893, of my 1892 crop. Page 340 

 stales that Mr. Wiilard was fined $35.00 and 

 costs — a total of I<i4..8."). Mr. Wiilard wrote me, 

 in a letter dated Dec. 6, that the total cost was 

 ^TO.s.t; and in another letter, dated Dec. 18 

 {both in 1893), the fine and costs was $73.8.5. 

 The fine being $35.00, '" costs " come pretty high, 

 making arrests a very good business in Ohio. 

 Mr. Wiilard was adjudged guilty by the court, 

 solely upon the chemical-analysis report of 

 Prof. Albert W. Smith. f You didn't state this 

 in your editorial, nor did you state the fact that 

 it was upon the evidence of another chemical 

 analysis by this same Prof. Smith that Mr. 

 Jankovsky was damaged in reputation, and by 

 the law of the State uf Ohio compelled to pay 

 a heavy tribute to the pockets of officials; but 

 on the previous page you state practically the 

 same things regarding ISIr. .lankovsky. 



Before closing this article I will state that I 

 have shipped no impure honey to Mr. Wiilard 

 iior any other man, during 1893 and 1894. If I 

 had. I would not have received the testimonials 

 I did. When you say that my " utterances on 

 the glucose question give coloring to the state- 

 ments of the different chemists," you do not 

 compliment the science of chemistry, and yet, 

 in my opinion, you speak logically of the 

 science, but illogically and wrongfully of me. 

 I have never said one word to lend you reason 

 for such a statement. Whenever I have writ- 

 ten or spoken upon the glucose-honey-mixture 

 question I have in every instance stated that 

 no bee-keeper could afford to adulterate, and I 

 didn't believe bee-keepers irere adulterating. 

 1 have said that glucose was not poison nor in- 



jurious to the human system; that .50 lbs. of it 

 is consumed annually under the name of " gold- 

 en drips," and other syrups, to every pound of 

 honey eaten. I have also said that, while it 

 might be to our interests to discourage its con- 

 sumption in all forms, in all of which it is a 

 competitor to our product, to go to complaining 

 of bee keepers, and making arrests, or doing or 

 publishing any thing sensational that will get 

 into and go the rounds of newspapers, will 

 damage us materially. I have said these 

 things, and 1 say them again, because I believe 

 them true; and, further, I believe that a state- 

 ment of these truths, if heeded, will be of im- 

 mense value to our pursuit. Yon used the term 

 "cheap honey." I have never sold honey at a 

 price that could be called " cheap," except for 

 an article superior to nearly all of the extracted 

 honey on the market. I inclose you my price 

 list, which quotes the lowest ligures I have ever 

 sold at; and I have a late circular before me, 

 from S. T. Fish & Co., quoting extracted honey 

 at i}4 cents. Prof. Wiley, of Washington, 

 whom you quote, it must not be forgotten, was 

 for several years justly called a liar, and de- 

 stroyer of our business, which impeaches his 

 testimony, or else he was for years worse abus- 

 ed than I am at this day by bee-journals. 



You state that it seems to be " demanded of 

 you that the bee-keepers of the land be notified 

 of these things." Now, Bro. Root, how do you 

 think my friends and myself, who positively 

 know the truth, couple that statement with the 

 one that you " practice and preach that kind of 

 charity that is kind and suffereth long"? Ad- 

 mitting that you believe the truth of what 

 you have published, even if it were true. I 

 should like to hear your explanation of how and 

 what good it will do the bee-keepers of the land 

 to be " notified of these things." I can not im- 

 agine. If I were told that any prominent bee- 

 keeper who had succeeded in the business, mak- 

 ing it buy him $10,000 worth of other property, 

 besides increasing itself— that this bee-keeper 

 has always paid every debt promptly; that his 

 word was as good as a bank-draft in the com- 

 mercial world; that he had been honored with 

 the highest office in the gift of the people of his 

 municipality; that he had the intelligence to 

 invent implements and nuithods that were 

 praised by the brightest of his class; was doing 

 something that was both " foolish " and crimi- 

 nal, I wouldn't believe he was doing it as long 

 as there was a shadow of doubt; and when 

 there was not, I should be compelled to doubt 

 the foolishness and criminality of the act, and 

 be tempted to try it myself; wouldn't you? 

 But what am I to do? If the science of chem- 

 istry is reliable, I can produce nothing but adul- 

 terated honey in this locality, and, consequent- 

 ly, must quit the business. If I have wronged 



* Candying is no proof of purity; see p. 61.— Ed. 

 + Ves: but the analysis wiis confirmed by Prof. 

 Holjbs.— Eu. 



