1894 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



415 



There are 49,000,000 acres devoted to raising 

 C)5.()00,0(H) tons of hay, worth $507,000,000. Dr. 

 Miller, you deal in so much straw perhaps you 

 know something about this hay business. Why 

 don't you hold hay conventions? Are you 

 afraid they will see hay seed in your har — hay, 

 hay, doctor? 



We remarked a while ago that one honey- 

 producer here produced more honey than the 

 whole State of Vermont. From the scarcity of 

 rain up to the present writing, and the long 

 visages borne by bee-keepers, I shouldn't be 

 surprised if one Vermont bee-keeper would pro- 

 duce more than the whole State of California. 



Those Ontario Canadians and others boast 

 that there's no wind in Ontario. Oh, no! never- 

 theless, a house in the suburbs of the town is 

 propped on all four corners. Come to think of 

 it, that house was in Claremout. Prof. Cook's 

 new home. Well, Claremont and Ontario are 

 so near each other that we will put them all 

 together. 



Willie Atchley. somewhere in a back number, 

 says that bees do not remove eggs and place 

 them in queen-cells. Last season I noticed in a 

 hive a partly bnilt queen-cell. There was one egg 

 in the cell, which was in the extracting-super, 

 above a queen-excluding honey-board. Not 

 another egg in the super, and the queen was 

 below. Query: How did the egg get there un- 

 less carried from below by the bees? 



HEDDON FURTHER REPLIES. 



On page 33.5 we gave a brief synopsis of an 

 article sent in by Mr. Heddon; but the latter 

 feels that he should be allowed to speak for 

 himself. Wishing at all times to do him full 

 justice, we have decided to publish the article 

 in question. To this we make no reply because 

 we do not desire to prolong the matter any 

 longer than is necessary. 



Dear Mr. Root: — As it seems to me your foot- 

 notes are unjust in their inferences, and neglect 

 to touch the principal arguments of my article, 

 I desire to refer to the matter again. 



Your tirstsentence regarding" those who have 

 purchased honey of me before " is not fair, be- 

 cause I did not refer to persons who purchased 

 honey of me "before," but to those who pur- 

 chased at the same time, and both before and 

 after, and out of the same lot of that shipped 

 to Mr. Willard and others. You publish au 

 entire copy of a postal card from one G. F. 

 Ayers. I do not remember Mr. Ayers ; and 

 while it would not be strange that I might for- 

 get a customer, I have been back over mv 

 alphabetically filed orders for 1891, "92, '93, and 

 ""94, and I can not find the name. IJut I am glad 

 you published Mr. Ayers' card, because it 

 places you under honorable obligation to pub- 

 lish reports from others of my customers. You 

 asked how about honey that I shipped before 

 1893 and '94. I have never shipped (niu adulter- 

 ated honey to n?)}/ one ; but your asking this 

 ■question is prii)vi-f<icia evidence tliat you are 

 not depending on chemical analysis, hut hear- 

 say, for your suspicions. I have been apprised of 



the source of your fancied evidence. You ask- 

 ed me to state '• what in the world bee-keepers 

 are to do." The answer seems to be plain— do 

 the best we can. This brings us to the real 

 point at issue — the point I first began to discu.ss 

 at our State convention, and which discussion 

 you assumed to be a defense of adulteration. 

 If you do not agree with me, that making 

 arrests of members of any class of honey deal- 

 ers, whether it be city dealers or producers, 

 will not stop adulteration, and thus do no good, 

 but til rough newspapers destroy the reputation 

 of our product in the minds of consumers, 

 why dou"t you arrest some one? Two arrests 

 have been made in Ohio, and in both cases, I 

 am sure, the arrested parties were innocent. I 

 might have concluded that my honey had been 

 removed, and other, which was adulterated, 

 placed in the cans, were it not for the fact that 

 I had been and am now (juite certain that tlie 

 chemical analysis of the day is a combination 

 of honest error and conscious inability, as prov- 

 en in the Jankovsky case. Certainly 1 was 

 well aware that the Fish honey was pronounced 

 slightly adulterated with sugar and not largely 

 mixed with glucose. I thought of all this. 

 But you do not seem to see the point. The 

 point is, that, notwithsUindmq the fact that 

 " it was sugar adulteration," and " very slight- 

 ly," and "such adulteration very dif^cult to 

 determine," the chemists and the court officials 

 hesitated not, but have secured their fees, and 

 Mr. Jankovsky is some §^75. 00 out of pocket, and 

 henceforth can never stand up in court and say 

 he never was arrested and convicted. Not only 

 his reputation but also his business has been 

 damaged. In your endeavor to lift up Mr. Fish 

 with your lever, Gi.kanings. using me for the 

 fulcrum, it seems to me you deal a terrible blow 

 to courts and chemists. Although the chem- 

 ists were not able to tell, they either didn't 

 know they were not competent authority, or 

 else they had no respect for the rights of the 

 citizen. My fornn'r reference was nothing 

 more nor less than to show that the present 

 science of chemistry is now convicting and 

 fining innocent people, and no amount of ex- 

 piation as to how their errors came about 

 changes the force of my citation. 



I next come to your statement as to what I 

 would have seen had I "been to the Washington 

 and Chicago bee-keepers' conventions, when 

 Prof. Wiley was warmly welcomed by bee- 

 keepers." I wish I had been there. I should 

 been able to say, " I am glad to meet you. Prof. 

 Wiley I beg of you to remember that ycu are 

 now shaking a consistent hand ; I never called 

 you a 'liar.' Prof. W., let us sympathize with 

 each other; we have both been attacked by 

 bee-journals. You are back in the 'band- 

 wagon,' please instruct me as to how you got 

 there ! " 



I did not call Prof. Wiley a " liar," but I said 

 he either was one or else he was at one time 

 worse abused by bee- journals than I am being 

 now. 



I now come to the point of your having honey 

 in cans, and the cans in boxes, and the cover of 

 the box having tacked upon it one of my ex- 

 press tags. I do not doubt it, because I put 

 them on that way — an easy way to imitate. 

 The tag is no doubt mine; but if it is nailed 

 upon my cover, that cover resting on my box, 

 that box containing my can, the honey in that 

 can is not my honey provided it is not pure and 

 of first quality of its grade. (By this word 

 " my." I mean having once been mine.) I now 

 mail yon a sample of my pure honey, the same 

 that I shipped to all my customers, and I desire 

 that you conipjirc it with the honey in those 

 cans, and then n'tiirn to me a sample of that 

 in the cans you have. You can return in the 



