416 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 15. 



same mailing package, and I enclose stamps 

 for postage. Also please state in Gleanings 

 how they compare. 



In your next paragraph you bring into public 

 print what you claim I wrote in a private letter 

 to some one. I do not remember to whom I 

 wrote such words. I may have done so, how- 

 ever. We will admit that I wrote these words 

 in a private letter to some person. Of course, 

 we all know that Prof. Cook is far from being a 

 " fool," or "silly," and that it requires nothing 

 short of genius bordering upon the " conso- 

 mate" to make so much of a seeming case 

 against me as you have done, with nothing 

 real for a groundwork. If I wrote those words, 

 I am sorry for the mistake, and must give as 

 my only excuse that I then had what I now 

 have in my mind, the thought that it is both 

 silly and foolish to hope for general benetit to 

 bee culture to grow out of the persecution of 

 honey- producers. On the other hand, if the 

 object is not to benefit bee-keepers, but to 

 temporarily injure a competitor in business, 

 "foolishness" "immediately changes to con- 

 spiracy. However, speaking of your not send- 

 ing me proof, I see no logic, nothing wise and 

 just, in retaliating upon the " weak." " foolish," 

 and "criminal," by witholding justice from 

 them. I very much admire the following 

 quotation from a prayer: " Lord, bless the 

 wicked; thou hast blessed the eood by making 

 them good." I have not, said that the chemists 

 of our land are all ignorant and vicious, al- 

 though we all know enough of mankind to 

 know that chemistry, perched upon a good 

 salary, and well obscured from the masses, is 

 not necessarily always perfectly honest nor all- 

 wise. We know one man has been fined heavi- 

 ly, and immeasurably injured, through either 

 the ignorance or vice of chemists. 



You say yon have enough of my honey that 

 speaks for itself, to go around. I say you 

 haven't enough of my honey to support one bee 

 1.') seconds, that, sent out as samples, would not 

 do honor to me as a producer and to our busi- 

 ness at large. I mailed samples to many of my 

 customers, and I do not remember of a sample 

 sent that did not bring an order. If there are 

 any of my customers who will say the goods 

 were not like sample, I want to hear from them 

 tiiroush Gi.EANiNos ; but if such statements 

 should be made, I want to know, as I do in the 

 case of Mr. Ayers. why nothing was said to we; 

 and I further desire to have about fortv of my 

 other customers state what they think of my 

 honey, in Gleanings. 



By re-perusing the Fish-hon(^y advertisement, 

 I find it reads as follows: 



We offer you lioiiey. put up ill oriK'iiiiil pjickjig'os, 

 as receiv^ed from tlie jipinry, nt from 4 'i ti) (! cents 

 per lb., depending on qiialit.v aiui style of p;ii'k;if>'e8. 

 Can sell you any quantity you wisli, from 60 lbs. to 

 a carload. Samples mailed if so requested. Will 

 lliauk you for a response. • 



Resp'y youis, S. T. Fish & Co. 



Above the above, on the card, is the 'follow- 

 ing: 



We are agents for the Bee-keeper.s' Association, 

 and any honpj' we sell we guarantee strictly pure 

 and unadulterated. 



The wording of this card exhibits confusion, 

 and that the firm is already on the detensive. 

 does it not? Mr. Fish is a scholarly man of 

 business wisdom; and the way this card flut- 

 ters, we would know that not only the firm but 

 their customers had been hit. " From 41?4 to (> 

 cents," even in "(iO-ll). lots." "Cheap." Is this 

 lioney (two cents below the lowest of my prices 

 for the same grades) adulterated becau.se it is 

 cheap, or cheap because the word " adulterat- 

 ed " has been published too many times? 



Your references to the test to which chemistry 



has been put are not at all conclusive to me. 

 The tests should be made by persons on one 

 side who will, for the time being, lay aside all 

 desires as to results. I am well satisfied that 

 there are honeys, pure from the blossoms, that, 

 under chemical test, will answer the chemists' 

 requirements for glucose, and I have no doubt 

 it can be proven by honest experiment. I was 

 a witness to one glucose experiment at Lansing 

 — one which has been cited as a case proving- 

 the ease of detection. A portion of reddish 

 honey was divided into three parts — a small 

 part, medium part, and a larger part. White 

 confectioners' glucose was mixed with each, 

 and the shades of color afforded an unerring 

 guess; for. when brought in. we were told that 

 one lot of honey was mixed in different quanti- 

 ties, with equal amounts of glucose. I wonder 

 if all the other tests were as severe as this one. 

 And this test has been cited in your paper to 

 show the ease of detecting glucose by taste. 

 The glucose we have tasted in our confection- 

 ers' shop here has no taste at all that the 

 aromatic flavors of honey will not annihilate at 

 once. I tasted of the Lansing experiments, 

 and could unerringly tell, by appearance and 

 taste both, which had the most glucose (the 

 less of flavor being most diluted with the com- 

 paratively tasteless.) I know that I have 

 tasted pure honeys that I could not tell from 

 any one of these glucosed samples. If others- 

 could, I could not; but I could unravel that 

 experiment with greatest ease. When the 

 chemist is really tested, we shall then know 

 whether or not bis reports are competent to- 

 fine and send people to jail. or. what is worse, 

 to public disgrace. I am far from having a de- 

 sire that present chemistry can not detect glu- 

 cose in honey with sufficient certainty to war- 

 rant conviction ; but, fully believing it to be 

 true, I have a stronger desire that no more 

 honey-producers should be persecuted and in- 

 jured while ail bee-keepers are also materially 

 damaged. 



Your statement, that my utterances have de- 

 fended the practice, are wholly unfair. That 

 is another disputed question, I maintaining that 

 they do not defend the practice, and asserting 

 positively that such was far from my intentions. 

 While I said that be(!-keepers' unions could not 

 stop one little honey-producer, the idea I wished 

 to carry was that they can not stop the practice 

 with anybody. What harm can it do for 

 me to niake'this stateuKsnt to bee-keepers 

 when the city adulterators (all the adulter- 

 ators there are) know it full well before- 

 hand and after the Union has previously, 

 for a whole year, admitted it by its non-action. 

 When it was first proposed to put this load up- 

 on the Union (an offspring of my own. and to 

 which I am grcnxtiy attached), I objected be- 

 cause I thought it would weaken and destroy 

 the already proven efficiency of the Union in 

 the line of work for which it was originated, 

 and I think so still. What better evidence of 

 my original statement, made at the time I 

 opposed the change in the constitution, need I 

 adduce, than the fact that more than a year 

 has passed, and the Union board has proven by 

 its actions that it dare not even test the truth- 

 fulness of my assertion. Had I been Mr. Jan- 

 kovsky. and had T been arrested and fined by 

 any pure-food commission, bee-keepers' union, 

 or any one els(>. it would cost such commission 

 or union or person a very large sum before 

 they were through with me. The logical gen- 

 ius of law is a very different thing from the 

 piejiidices of those who persist in the adultera- 

 tion cry. We do not differ, and never have 

 differed, upon the richt and justice of adultera- 

 tion ; you have only made it appear so ; we 

 differ greatly as to policy of action, and we do 



