278 



GLEANINGS IN 



you I have wronged myself more by losing my 

 temper over the inconsistent and damaging par- 

 agraphs which have been printed concerning 

 me. all of which I knew were not true, and that 

 may be the reason you complain of my not giv- 

 ing you " satisfactory answers." I wish to ask 

 you why you didn't send me advance proofs of 

 this printed matter on page 240, and in justice 

 publish this reply in connection therewith. 



You have previously had my " honey testi- 

 monials." I wish you would take the original 

 manuscript and publish it. You have also seen 

 my "price list." 



"Now I have given the facts for just what 

 they are worth, and the reader may draw his 

 own conclusions." James Heddon. 



Dowagiac, Mich., Mar. is. 



[We are very glad indeed, Mr. Heddon. to see 

 you appeal to the public at large who have pur- 

 chased honey of you before, that gave satisfac- 

 tion. Here is a postal just put into my hands: 



A. I. Root:— It doesn't seem as though you are 

 going to stop that cry of adulteration. If you had, I 

 should want to stop Gleanings. You surely hit 

 the nail on tlie head in the Heddon honey. I bouglit 

 two cases of him several years ago, and I tlien 

 thought it was not Iioncij. I sent a sample to you by 

 mail, but it was broken in transit. 



Atherton, lud., Marcli 20. G. F. Ayres. 



You say you shipped no impure honey to 

 Mr. Willard, nor to any other man, during 1893 

 and '4. How about what you shipped before 

 '93 and '94? And furthermore I do not see that 

 you state clearly that you never adulterated. 



If it will damage bee-keepers materially by 

 making arrests, or publishing the names of 

 those selling glucose for honey, what in the 

 world are bee-keepers to do? 1 am aware that 

 S. T. Fish & Co.. and oilier commission men, 

 have offered extracted honey in quantities at a 

 low figure; but so far as I know, no one has ad- 

 vertised honey in a retail way as cheap as or 

 cheaper than you have done, /or the same grade 

 and source. 



Had you been present at some of the recent 

 national conventions, especially the one held in 

 Washington and that held during the World's 

 Fair, in Chicago, you would have seen Prof. 

 Wiley not only warmly welcomed, but held in 

 very high esteem by the bee-keepers of our 

 land. Prof. Wiley may have been unwise in 

 the past, but he surely is the friend of all bee- 

 keepers now. 



You ask what good it will do the bee-keepers 

 of our land to be notified of these things. It 

 seems to me the answer is self-evident. See 

 contents of postal above. If a bee-keeper and 

 honey-producer has been guilty of adulterating 

 his honey with elucose, I do not think hp will 

 follow it very long after he has been publicly 

 exposed through the journals. This policy will 

 help to protect bee-keepers against this glucose 

 competition. 



The two cans of honey that are now in our 

 possession have a printed tag attached to them, 

 reading just like this, and just like other tags 

 from you direct: 



FtiOM 



JAMES HEDDON, 



DEALER IN 



BEE-KEEPERS' SUI'PLIES, 



HONEY AND BEKS. 



Dowagiac, - Micii. 



Why didn't we send you an advance proof? 



You yourself answer the question. We wrote 



to you a year ago, once or twice, telling yon of 



the evidence that we then had in our possession, 



BEE CULTURE. Apk. 1. 



and you wrote letters to us, and to other par- ' 

 ties, wherein, as usual, you "lose your tem- 

 per," etc. Yes, indeed, we have a letter from 

 you to another party wherein you refer to Prof. 

 Cook and ourselves as "fools," "silly gang,"* 

 "simpletons." In a recent communication ta 

 us you accuse us of trying to rob you of your 

 right!-", "of using the blackmail system," etc. 

 We do not see how you could expect advance 

 proofs under such circumstances. 



If the chemists of our land are ignorant and 

 vicious, we should like to let judges of honey^ 

 and honey-producers, taste of the stuff in those 

 cans which came to us from you through a 

 third party as pure honey. We know that hon- 

 ey from different localities varies, and that late 

 fall honey is often poor in any locality; but out 

 of the thousands of samples that have beeui 

 submitted to us for inspection, we nevei' yet 

 tasted any honey gathered by ihe bees, having 

 such an unmistakable flavor of corn syrup as- 

 this. There is enough to it to go around, and 

 it speaks for itself plainer than words. A. I. R. 



Mr. Heddon refers to the honey of Mr. Jan- 

 kovsky. from S T. Fish & Co., that was pro- 

 nounced by Prof. Smith to be adulterated, but. 

 which, by Prof. Spencer, on its second analysis, 

 was declared to be pure. Mr. Heddon probably 

 failed to observe that Prof. Smith pronounced 

 the honey adulterated with sugar syrup, and 

 showed only 1.5 per cent. We have before stat- 

 ed that we believe it is generally admitted by 

 the best chemists that it is not always possible- 

 to be certain regarding the small per cents of 

 siujar adulterations, especially if the syrup 

 has passed through the organism of the bee; 

 but when we come to the matter of glucose- 

 adulterations, we are not aware that the chem- 

 ists have ever made any mistake. Glucose Is 

 very easily detected, and its presence can be 

 known to a certainty. On page (588, Sept. 

 1.5th No., 1893, Gleanings. > on will remember 

 Prof. Cook reported having sent to Prof. Wiley 

 and some others of the best chemists of the 

 country 50 samples — some adulterated with 

 glucose, some with sugar syrup and some not 

 adulterated at all, but all known to Prof. Cook 

 by number, and the exact amount of adultera- 

 tion, if any, in each of the samples. When the 

 reports of the azialyses vvere received, it was 

 shown that each of the chemists recognized un- 

 erringly the glucosed samples and most of the 

 sugar syrtip samples. It seems to us that this 

 test ought to be pretty conclusive. Mr. H. may 

 refer to the case of Mr. Chas. h\ ^lutli. whom 

 everybody knows to be opposed to glucosed 

 adulterations. I)ut whose honey was pronounced 

 adulterated witli glucose, by one of Pidf. Wi- 

 ley's associates. But it has been conclusively 

 shown that these glucosed samples, alleged ta 

 have come from Mr. Miith. bore counterfeit la- 

 bels; and we have not a doubt in our own mind 

 that a man who would forge a label would not 

 hesitate to adulterate.* 



If Mr. Heddon has not adulterated, his recent 

 utterances defending the practice, objecting to- 

 the change in the constitution of the Bee-keep- 

 ers' Union, and saying, among other things, 

 that "all the Bee-keepers' Unions this side of 

 fairy-land could not stop one little honey-pro- 

 ducer from adulterating." and trying to make 

 us believe iliat. apparently for the purpose of 

 making glucose-mixers escape detection, is- 

 about as repreliensible as to adulterate. 



* Since writing tliis our attention lias been called 

 to the fact tliat Mr. Mutli did send Prof. Wiley some 

 of his honey— honey of undoubted purity— and that 

 it was l).v li'ini pronounced " probably pure." This- 

 would indiciite that at that time there was an ele- 

 ment of uncertainty; but since then the science of 

 chemistry has made great advances; and, so far a.s- 

 glucose is concerned we tliink there is no uncertainty 



