118 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Feb. 15. 



honey to the favorable notice of hundreds of 

 people who otherwise would never wake up to 

 the fact that honey is cheap and enjoyable. 

 Even if the plan did not pay in itself, 11 would 

 pay in that way. Nor is this an untried theory. 

 In the Review I have already written, or will 

 write, of confirmatory evidence, and will re- 

 peat it here more in detail. In L'Ajylculteur 

 for July, 1896, page 378, appeared this para- 

 graph: "The sale of honey in little flasks, for 

 individual portions of 30 to 35 grammes, is in- 

 creasing. These flasks, for restaurants, are 

 sold for 15 centimes, by the firm of Salmon, 8 

 Rue de Acacias, Paris. There are also flasks 

 for double individual portions, which contain 

 60 to 65 grammes, of which the price is 25 cen- 

 times. It is a new kind of trade, which aids in 

 spreading the use of honey; it would be a mis- 

 take to neglect it." In the Bienenvater for 

 November. 1896, appeared this paragraph: 

 "Herr B., in P., formerly lived in a Moravian 

 village, where a disposal of his honey was 

 scarcely to be thought of; the peasants were 

 poor, and strangers and summer guests did not 

 look up the barren region. But the place was 

 the breakfast and dinner station of a railroad. 

 Herr B. made arrangements with the propri- 

 etor of the restaurant to place his honey-glasses 

 on the Counter for a small recompense. For 10 

 or 20 kreuzers [5 or 10 cents] the travelers re- 

 ceived a little glass of honey and a roll; the 

 glass was wrapped in paper containing brief 

 information about honey, with the address of 

 the producer. The business was a brilliant 

 success; he no longer had to concern himselr 

 about disposing of his honey elsewhi-re, and 

 many of his chance customers became lasting 

 ones." 



I am strongly of the opinion that individual 

 portions should be confined to comb honey 

 alone. If once this thing were started with 

 extracted honey, the gates would be opened to 

 the swindlers to crowd in with imitations, and 

 ruin the trade. But with comb honey we are 

 sure of no competition except from other peo- 

 ple's pure honey, which is what we want, for 

 the extension of honey-consumption means 

 money in our own pockets in the future. If the 

 customer prefers liquid honey, a slight manip- 

 ulation with the spoon, which suggests itself 

 to any one, will enable him to secure the great- 

 er portion in a liquid form. This is easier done 

 with a small chunk of honey in a special vessel 

 than when it is lying on a plate. 



I have not tried this, having no honey to do 

 it with this year; but I am so impressed with 

 the principles involved that I conclude to lay 

 it before the readers of this journal, in the hope 

 that the idea will provoke comment, and, if 

 necessary, criticism. I never did believe in 

 that apicultural pedantry which plumes itself 

 on such sayings as "facts, not fancies," and 

 " cackle when the egg is laid and you have seen 



it," forgetting that all business facts were fan- 

 cies at one time. 



It is worth while considering whether it is 

 enough to merely put our honey on the market, 

 and let the commission men and grocers do the 

 rest. They are not interested in it as we are. 

 It is also worth wnile considering whether it 

 will pay to waste much energy in boosting 

 those uses of honey which are plainly subject 

 to competition from other quarters, such as in 

 cooking and in medicine. Honey in its own 

 field is entirely distinctive and unique, and can 

 have no competition. Though this field is 

 quite limited in comparison with other foods, 

 it is a question whether the general recogni- 

 tion of honey for just what it is would not be 

 equivalent to a demand far greater than the 

 supply. In order to attain this end, it would 

 seem to be desirable to make a study of the 

 underlying principles of honey-consumption, 

 and work accordingly. 



Denver, Col. 



COUNTING THE VOTE. 



W. D. FKENCHS REPLY. 



Mr. jEditor;— Referring to comments on page 

 60 in Gleanings, you say: "I shall be very 

 greatly surprised if the proposed scheme for 

 amalgamation carries; and, moreover, one of 

 the men whom he (Newman) has recommended 

 to count the votes, has, in the Progressive Bee- 

 heeper, criticised most severely the American 

 Bee Journal. Such a person can hardly be 

 impartial. I have nothing against Mr. French. 

 Outside of his very apparent prejudice he 

 would be as good as any man to count the votes 

 and certify the results to the General Manager; 

 but it certainly would have looked very much 

 better, in view of the position that Mr. French 

 will occupy, if he had kept still." 



Now, Mr. Editor, I am sure you do not in- 

 tend to cast insinuations or reflections upon the 

 honesty of this count, or infer from my position 

 as taken in the Progressive Bee-keeper that I 

 would not be impartial in counting the votes 

 for the Union. Such a proposition on your 

 part would be wholly conjectural, and without 

 foundation. I never sought the appointment 

 on the returning board, though, inasmuch as 

 it came to me, I shall do my duty properly, 

 without regard to my own convictions, or those 

 of any other member of the Union. Every man 

 has a perfect right to discuss all questions vital 

 to his interests, morally and constitutionally. 

 Though no one need fear the honesty of the 

 count, or sling baseless insinuations into the 

 eyes of the returning board. 



National City, Cal., Jan. 28. 



[I still think, in view of the position you will 

 occupy, or have occupied, perhaps, by this 

 time, if you had said nothing either pro or con 

 it would have looked better. I am glad you 



