494 



GLEANINGSN BEE CULTURE. 



July 1. 



common sugar in pure honey. In this statement I 

 defy contradiction. Wm. A. Selser, 



Wyncote, Pa., June 32. 



In referring to Wiley as authority for the 

 statements I made on page 457, 1 had reference 

 to a special bulletin on the subject of honey 

 and syrup adulterations that was issued in 1893. 

 The chief chemist, in speaking of the proper- 

 ties of pure honey, says: " The amount of cane 

 sugar varies from nothing to eight to ten per 

 cent, according to quantity of cane sugar in 

 the nectar, and the extent of inversion to 

 which it is subjected in passing the organism 

 of the bee." In September of the same year, 

 in Gleanings, page 688, Prof. Cook speaks of 

 the diificulty of detecting cane-syrup adultera- 

 tions, especially if they have passed the organ- 

 ism of the bee. 



It may be, as Mr. Selser points out, there is a 

 confusion in terms, and that the cane sugar of 

 the market is different from that referred to by 

 the chemist. The point that I made, however, 

 still holds good — that, if one is dishonest 

 enough to adulterate at all, he will not stop at 

 10 or 15 per cent, but will put in enough to 

 make it pay. It does not seem right that small 

 percentages of cane syrup or sugar, when 

 found in honey, should be taken as absolute 

 evidence of fraud, either on the part of the 

 dealer or the producer. Witness, for example, 

 the case spoken of by E. H. Schseffle in this 

 issue. Only a small per cent of cane sugar was 

 found in the honey, and yet it is evident that 

 neither the producer nor the dealer meant to 

 defraud. 



THE beekeepers' UNIONS; A REPLY TO PROF. 

 A. J. COOK. 



The following is just received from General 

 Manager Newman: 



Editor of Gleanings:— In your issue of June 13, 

 page 449, Prof. Cook attempts to show that the 

 members of the National Bee-lieepers' Union did 

 not understand what they were voting on at the 

 last election. As my name is connected with that 

 statement, allow me a few remarks. 



I give the members of the Union credit for more 

 sagacity than that, and I do not think the professor 

 will dare to stand by his published statements. 



In the first place, Prof. Cook mukes this state- 

 ment: "Mr Newman says the old Union can not 

 attack any evil but such as it has combatted in the 

 pagt." I beg to say that I never made any such 

 statement, either to Prof. Cook or any one else, and 

 I demand the proof, or the withdrawal of that as- 

 sertion. Let me state a few facts which none can 

 dispute: 



Thirteen years ago the National Bee-keepers' 

 Union was formed in order to 'defend bee-keepers 

 in their rights as citizens of this republic. This it 

 has done to the satisfaction of all. The Adx-isory 

 Board has been consulted in every important case, 

 and the General Manager lias always been in per- 

 fect accord with the Board, there never having 

 been a single disagreement,. Indeed, there has been 

 such unanimity up to this time that there has never 

 been a dissenting voice relative to the coui-se to be 

 pursued. The instructions given by the Board in 

 the past have been by me carritjd out to the letter: 

 and what the Board decides to do in the future will 

 be done ; but I can assure Prof. Cook and every other 

 member that neither the decision of the Board nor 

 the vote of the members will be clisregarded. as he 

 advises in the third paragraph of the article in 

 question. Such a thought is unworthy of a loyal 

 member of any organization. 



Last fall the Board gave every instruction neces- 

 sary to the voting, how the ballots were to be dis- 

 posed of, who were to count them, etc. For extra 

 caution, :is I imagined there might be a question, I 

 directed that they be counted in the presence of a 

 public official, and they were so counted and certi- 

 fied to by the County Clerk, and the correctness of 

 the count was Httested by him under the seal of the 

 Superior Court. 



At Lincoln, Neb., last fall, a new"LTnion" was 

 formed for doing the particular work of prosecut- 

 ing the adulterators of honey. Its originators offer- 

 ed to amalgamate with tlie" National Bee-keepers' 

 Union, and that amalgamation was submitted to 

 vote — the result being for amalgamation, 51; 

 against it, 106— more than two-thirds vote against it, 

 when it would have needed two-thirds for It to have 

 carried. This was an overwhelming defeat. 



As Prof. Cook says he voted against amalgama- 

 tion, he voted with the gre;it majority to continue 

 the two organizations as they were "before, even 

 though he now says it was " senseless " to do so. 

 He now intimates that the line of defense which 

 has occupied the Union for the past 13 years is "no 

 longer important." The many bee-keepers who are 

 being legislated against all over the country, and 

 are in danger of being fined or sent to prison, will 

 certainly demonstrate that the defense of the piir- 

 suit is yet quite "important." 



Again, the Professor says. "The old Union has got 

 to fight living issues or die." Wliy, my dear sir, 

 tliat is just what it has been doing all the while- 

 living issues— yes, and for the pursuit, the very 

 right to live — its very existence. It will still be 

 "fighting living Issues " when its enemies are no 

 longer able to " kick." 



The editor is right in saying that there is now as 

 much room for the two organizations as formerly— 

 for the old North American Bee-keepers' Associa- 

 tion simply changed its name to be able to prose- 

 cute adulterators. The two lines of work are dis- 

 tinct—one to prosecute adulterators, and the other 

 to "defend" bee-keepers: and, if the members so 

 decide, there is no reason in the world why they 

 should not remain separate organizations and each 

 do its work, and prosper. 



If the next meeting of the North American Bee- 

 keepers' Association at Buffalo shall amend the 

 rejected constitution so as to be consistent and 

 effective (as indicated in my criticisms of that docu- 

 ment), and it is desired by the Advisory Board of 

 the National Bee-keepers' Union to resubmit it to 

 the members, I shall be pleased to have it done at 

 the next election. If not, then the two organiza- 

 tions should act in harmony, and let the matter of 

 amalgamation drop. 



If I am standing in the way, as Editor Root inti- 

 mates on page 4.')0, let the members of the Union 

 elect Manager Secor, or some one else, and I shall 

 gladly welcome my successor, as I have often plain- 

 ly stated before. Until then, let us have peace. 

 Thomas G. Newman. 



San Francisco, Cal., June 22. 



If Mr. Newman did not utter the sentiment 

 attributed to him by Prof. Cook, he has said 

 something very much like it. I have not the 

 time to go back over his ofScial utterances, but 

 I do find in the last report he says: " The Na- 

 tional Bee-keepers' Union was brought into 

 being for a special purpose— that of defending 

 bee-keepers in their rights as apiarists." And 

 again: " If the Union is to be reorganized to do 

 this work, it will subvert its original purpose 

 and mainly change its character." And again: 

 "The funds in the treasury were accumulatecj 

 as a defense fund, and should not be appropri- 

 ated to other uses, without a full and well- 

 understood vote." After this vote was taken, 

 in an article in the Americmi Bee Journal, 

 page 291, Mr. Newman again says, with an air 

 of triumph: "The National Bee-keepers' Union 

 decided by an overwhelming vote that it would 

 not consent to amalgamation nor to the use of 



