878 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Dec. 1. 



ters. or have the professors in the seminary 

 often occupy my place. Still, the necessary 

 work was evidently beyond ray strength. At 

 that time few of our Congregational ministers 

 preached without a written manuscript. About 

 half of my time I took only notes into the pul- 

 pit. Years after I left Andover, some, who had 

 heard me extemporize while they were theo- 

 logical students, reminded me of the pleasant 

 but novel experience it was to them to hear a 

 preacher who did not read his sermons. 



My congregation was famous for aged per- 

 sons, and I often recall the venerable array of 

 white-haired men at the heads of the pews. 

 The widow of a Revolutionary soldier, almost 

 one hundred years old, soon sent for the new 

 minister to pray with her. although she was so 

 deaf that she had not for years been able to 

 hear a prayer. I always had an unusually 

 strong and clear voice; so I thought I would 

 try the experiment of making this aged woman 

 hear a few words of prayer. Kneeling beside 

 her chair, as close to her ear as possible, I 

 prayed very slowly, but in as loud and emphatic 

 a tone as I possibly could. Rising from my 

 knees, after a short prayer, I saw tears rolling 

 down her furrowed cheeks as ^he exclaimed. 

 " O dear Lord ! I have heard a prayer again I I 

 never (expected to hear another prayer, but I 

 heard every word that you said, and you did 

 not Hcreum at m^ either!" After this it was 

 thought that the new minister could almost 

 make the deaf hear; but he could not. 



Dayton, O. L. L. Langstkoth. 



Cuntiniud. 



THE SUGAR-HONEY DISCUSSION. 



THE KEAL POSITION OF THE BEE-KEEPERS 

 KEVIEW; BY W. Z. HUTCHINSON. 



Readers and correspondents of the bee-jour- 

 nals have little to complain of in regard to the 

 unfairness of the way in which the journals 

 treat them or the subjects that come up for 

 discussion. I think that nearly all of them, if 

 not all ot them, are fair in this respect — they 

 are willing that all should- have a hearing; and 

 for this reason I feel sure that Gleanings will 

 allow me to define my position on the sugar- 

 honey matter. The main reason why I desire 

 to make this explanation is. that almost every 

 one seems disposed to jump to the conclusion 

 that I am advising fraud. 



When that first article came from friend 

 Hasty, I think that I felt very much as some 

 of tlie brethren do now. I thought, " Why, 

 Hasty is advising adulteration." I did not see 

 how I could publish it. I sat down to argue 

 the case with my erring brother. To my sur- 

 prise, I could not combat his views. (They yet 

 remain unanswered.) The gist of his argument 

 was that bees do make honey; that nectar, even 

 though evaporated to the consistency of honey, 

 would not be honey: that nectar is almost 

 wholly cane sugar which the secretions of the 

 bees change to glucose or honey. This being 

 the case, he ai'gued that it mattered not where 

 the bees secured their cane sugar, as the prod- 

 uct would be honey. This appeared reasonable, 

 and I remembered that, when feeding honey 

 for winter stores. I had often tasted of the 

 product and thought that, unless I knew its 

 source. I should have pronounced it honey. It 

 had always been the policy of the Review to 

 allow any one to be heard, even though his 

 views were not orthodox. I remembered, too, 

 that many of our blessings come in disguise, 

 and, not being recognized at first, they are oft- 

 en opposed. I knew, of course, that the idea of 

 feeding sugar to make honey was not new, 

 but that it really became honey was new. 



Heretofore it had been called adulteration. I 

 expected that the article would call forth se- 

 vere criticism, but was surprised at the turn 

 affairs took. Almost every one seemed to miss 

 the true spirit of the article, and the cry of 

 fraud was raised when there had not been the 

 least intimation that the product was to be sold 

 for any thing else then what it really was. 

 This hurt my feelings more than I can tell. 

 I was willing to admit that 1 might be lack- 

 ing in judgment: but to be accused of uphold- 

 ing fraud, when that was furthest from my in- 

 tention, was hard to bear. 



The article was published. Later I gave the 

 criticisms that were received. Then I was 

 still further surprised to see others come to my 

 defense. A wordy war seemed about to fol- 

 low. I asked my readers whether it would be 

 best to allow it to go on. and some good friends 

 of mine plead so earnestly that it be stopped 

 that I cut off the discussion, temporarily at 

 least, even though many wished it continued. 



It soon bobbed up serenely again, however, in 

 the shape of articles from Prof, Cook, showing 

 that even chemists, students, and Coofcs- could 

 not distinguish sugar honey from the best 

 clover and basswood. It seemed to me that it 

 would be a good time to decide upon what 

 honey really is. and I asked Prof. Cook to write 

 an article headed " What is Honey?" It ap- 

 peared in the Oct. Review, and, to my surprise, 

 it was actually a defense of the Hasty view of 

 the matter. The subject was again fairly 

 started, and it seemed better to allow it to go 

 on and have some kind of a decision arrived at 

 than to try to smother it and have it bursting 

 out in unexpected places. I wish that all who 

 are interesti^d in the matter could have the 

 November Review and read the views of Hasty, 

 Doolittle. R. L. Taylor. Dr. Miller, and others 

 on this knotty question. Don't think that the 

 arguments are all on one side, for both sides are 

 very fairly represented. 



Some seem to think that the editor of the 

 Review is advocating the feeding of sugar to 

 produce honey to be sold as fioral honey. 

 Neither he nor any of his correspondents have 

 advised such a course. The editor has never 

 advised the raising of sugar honey except as an 

 experiment. All that he has advised aside from 

 this is. in view of the assertions of such men as 

 Messrs. Cook and Hasty, that the matter shall 

 receive "discussion and experimentation. It 

 seems as though most of the writers wish the 

 question decided without discussion. Is this 

 wise? Remember that " he who can not reason 

 is a fool; he who dare not is a coward; he who 

 will not is a bigot." 



The Review has no pet implement, race of 

 bees, nor theory, to puff or boom. It tries hon- 

 estly to find out which is best, and thi^i make 

 known the fact. In a line running across its 

 title-page may be seen the following: "Devoted 

 to the Interests of Honey-producers." To the 

 best of my ability I am making the Revieiv 

 what it (Jlaims to be. The editor of Gleanings 

 writes as though the Review were advocating 

 the raising and sale of sugar honey. As I have 

 already said, it is simply trying to find whether 

 such a course is advlKdhie. A correspondent 

 wrote me a few days ago, " The Amerlcdn Bee 

 Journnl and Gleanings are here, and I see 

 they contain not a word about sugar honey. 

 Silence is one step more favorable than opposi- 

 tion; but it strikes me that silence on a ir.lhot 

 subject is not the way for a leading journal to 

 remain a leading journal." Gleanings is cer- 

 tainly a leading journal, and it has now taken 

 up the subject: bufiit says that it has done so 

 only that it might oppose the Review, which it 

 considers is taking a wrong course. The Review 

 has no other object than to arrive at the truth. 



