mn 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



33.'i 



MH. IIKDDON AND THE GI>UCOSK (QUESTION, 

 ONCE MOKE. 



As iiitinuitt'd in our last issue, we oxpoctod to 

 givi^ Mr. llcddoii a chance to reply to our foot- 

 note on p. 27^; but his reply, just at liand, takes 

 five columns to our two. As it is out of the 

 question for us to allow him so mucli space we 

 will endeavor to give the main points of liis ar- 

 ticle as /(((■/•?!/ and briefly as possible. 



Mr. Heddon sends an altidavit from his son 

 Charles, to the elT'ect that he (Charles) person- 

 ally took from the hives the Willard honey, 

 and shipped it himself; and that, to his certain 

 knowledge, all of said honey was free from 

 adulteration. This is good so far as it goes; 

 but, if we are correct, Mr. Willard asked Mr. 

 Heddon hunself to furnish an affidavit that 

 -aid honey was pure, but Mr. Heddon ignored 

 the request— or. at least, Mr. Willard received 

 no response. In answer to our inquiry regard- 

 ng the honey shipped by Mr. Heddon in 1893, 

 tie says he never shipped any adulterated honey 

 Lo any one. 



Referring to the two cans of honey we have 

 nour possession, he admits the genuineness of 

 the tags, and that he has been in the habit of 

 Attaching them in that way; but, assuming 

 :hat the tags, cans, and box, are his, he denies 

 that the honey is adulterated; or, if adulter- 

 ated, that it ever came from him. He says he 

 sends us a sample of pure honey, and asks us 

 to compare it with this in tlie cans. Of course, 

 we expected that the sample would taste all 

 right; and it is greatly superior to that in the 

 2ans. 



As to the cheap honey, he refers to 8. T. Fish 

 & Co. as advertising honey from 4^^ to H cts. per 

 lb., depending upon style of package and qual- 

 ity. In a letter just received from 8. T. Fish & 

 Co. they say that this 4%-cent honey is in bar- 

 rels, and Southern stock at that, while the fi- 

 cent honey s the finest product. Some time 

 ago they wrote us that the honey market was 

 very poor; and that, owing to the .very hard 

 times, they could not begin to realize anywh<^re 

 near their old prices, and they were afraid they 

 would have to make low offerings to dispose of 

 what they had. But Mr. Heddon has been of- 

 fering cheap honey for years back, and it was 

 not Southern stock either; nor were the times 

 hard as now. 



He refers to the test made by Prof. Cook on 

 the chemists, where .'iO samples were placed be- 

 fore them, some adulterated and some not, with 

 glucose, and which the chemists recognized cor- 

 rectly in every case, as not being conclusive to 

 him. He affirms that the test should be made 

 by persons who should '• lay aside all desires as 

 to results." That is just exactly what ivas 

 done. If they had any desire to show that the 

 honey ira.S' adulterated, why did they not show 

 those samples that were pure, as also adulterat- 

 ed ? But, no; they correctly picked out the 

 pure from the " doctored " samples. There was 



not and could not be the least prejudice in this 

 instance. 



Further, we call our readers to witness that 

 Mr. H(>,ddon said, on page 277, that nineteen- 

 twentietlis of his customers praised the honey 

 he shipped them, and that he (Heddon) offered 

 to show us the "original manuscript" to prove 

 it if we would publisli it. In the closing para- 

 graph of our footnote, we called attention to 

 these testimonials as being merely printed and 

 niimhercd, with neither date nor name; and as 

 Mr. Heddon liad offered to furnish the original 

 letters, proving all these testimonials to be gen- 

 uine, we told him that we would publish them 

 or acknowledge their genuineness. Now, did he 

 doit? We have read his 11-page article, now 

 in hand, over carefully, but do not see any ref- 

 erence to it; and as to the" original manuscript" 

 that he was to furnish, it has not yet made its 

 appearance. Perliaps he overlooked it. 



The rest of the article is concerned largely in 

 defense of his statements made at the Michigan 

 State Convention; and as he has nothing new to 

 offer we do not refer to it except to mention that 

 he says he did not defend the practice of mixing 

 glucose. The paper was published in the 

 American Bee Journal, and it speaks for it- 

 self. 



Finally, we must say that we have no more 

 room for further discussion of this matter. We 

 certainly do not wish to do Mr. Heddon an in- 

 justice; we are seeking the truth and the best 

 good of the pursuit. It seems to us he has had 

 enough space already; and unless there should 

 be some very good reason we should prefer to 

 devote our space to other matters. 



EVOLrXION BY HUMAN INTEI.MGENCE. 



I BELIEVE in the above kind of evolution; 

 and one of the most interesting wonders this 

 world affords to me is to look on and see what 

 human intelligence and the brains of thir king 

 men are continually evolving. .Just one illus- 

 tration. Something over 2f> years ago it was 

 my privilege to ride one of the first velocipedes. 

 There was then a sort of excitement and craze 

 for a time, and then it seemed to settle back 

 and be lost to the world— at least, to a certain 

 extent. There were some, however, who held 

 on and kept experimenting with the curious 

 machine. Some laughed at them for their 

 pains, and I do not know but I was among the 

 number. Finally the pneumatic safety made 

 quite a stir in the world about three years ago. 

 You all know that the first Columbia safety 

 was to me not only a wonder but a glimpse of 

 something I had not dreamed of. But the '94 

 wheel was such an improvement again that I 

 was pleasantly astonished and surprised when 

 the boys talked aliout having me try the results 

 of the experiments and work of the best me- 

 chanics and the best intelligence of the world 

 during 1893. I was a good deal incredulous 

 about finding any thing I should like better 



