340 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 1. 



it, as one writer in his zeal recently phrased it. 

 The retail buyer is at the other end of the 

 line from us; but he has rights, no less than 

 the retail dealer and wholesale dealer. What 

 the honest grocer thinks of the practice is 

 well illustrated on page S3. But suppose we 

 grant that many groceis "demand" faced 

 honey, overlooking for the moment the supe- 

 rior rights of the retail buyer. (The writer 

 referred to would apparently overlook them 

 altogether. ) What do those grocers want 

 faced honey for? Display? If so, then of 

 course they want the display to last as long as 

 they have the honey. That means that the 

 "facers " are sold last, and that means that 

 the customers are tempted by the front sec- 

 tions, but get the rear ones — precisely the 

 same effect that would bs produced if that less 

 worthy motive was kept in view in the first 

 place. I know of one grocery where just that 

 thing was done, and should not be surprised 

 to learn that it was a common practice. Some 

 will say, ." If we don't do it, the grocers will." 

 Page 83 shows that some grocers will not; 

 and for the rest, if they want to have their 

 comb honey faced, let them do it themselves. 

 Let us keep our hands clean. 



It is useless to argue that the customers are 

 to look out for their own interests; that, as 

 nearly all expect it, the rest must follow suit, 

 or suffer for it. That most people expect 

 sharp practice is no reason why it is perfectly 

 right to satisfy their expectations. If I ex- 

 pect to be waylaid in passing through a back 

 street, nevertheless no one is justified in ac- 

 tually taking my purse. A few, moreover, in 

 their innocence, do not expect to be fleeced; 

 so that, in their case, there is not even the 

 shadow of an argument for the operation. 

 What essential difference exists between the 

 effects of selling and buying that which is for 

 that which is not ? 



It may be said that the customer may al- 

 ways insist on having his pick of the lot. 

 Theoretically this is so; but in practice either 

 the honey-case is out of reach behind the 

 counter, and the customer doesn't like to 

 make trouble, or he is in a hurry, and doesn't 

 want to bother, or is thinking about the rest 

 of his order, etc. ; so that I question whether 

 in as many as half the cases the customer gets 

 what he supposes he will, by a glance at the 

 front of the honey-case. If this is true, what 

 shall we say of the half who thus get left ? 

 Shall we say they ought to have looked out 

 for their own interests? Sounds very fine; 

 but just extend the principle to larger interests 

 — bank deposits, for instance — and apply it to 

 yourself instead of some one else, and see how 

 you like it. 



The head and front of the argument for 

 facing is that it is customary — " they all do 

 it." The rottenness of this excuse is appar- 

 ent. I once asked the hired man of a neigh- 

 bor why he always let the ditch water run 

 into the reservoirs at night only. He replied 

 it was in order to get ahead of the ditch com- 

 pany, which did not allow water to be used 

 for reservoirs just then. I didn't say any 

 thing. Apparently fie interpreted my silence 

 as disapproval, which it was), for he went on 



to say that everybody did it; "and," said he, 

 in just those words, " what «'^rv<^(9f/v does is 

 right." This is like the argument some one 

 used for the L. frame — " To my mind, what is 

 approved by the majority is worthy of ap- 

 proval." Now, " to my mind," a more worth- 

 less argument ( considered logically only, over- 

 looking the moral aspects), can hardly be 

 imagined. Who are "the m^ajority " ? The 

 incompetent, of course. Those who don't 

 think, who follow their impulses, who are 

 like sheep, all doing what one does. It is 

 only the few who think. "The majority is 

 ahvays wrong," says a character in a drama of 

 Ibsen's. A French lawyer, being applauded 

 by the crowd, asked, " What foolish utterance 

 have I been guilty of?" The only "majori- 

 ty " argument worth considering is the major- 

 ity of the competent — which is but seldom 

 equivalent to " the majority of all," and cer- 

 tainly not in questions of universal justice, 

 like the one under consideration. Breadths 

 and charity are not yet at the bidding of the 

 mob. 



It seems to be implied that, if the customer 

 is not verbally informed that the honey is 

 uniform, when it is not, one's conscience may 

 be free. That reminds me of the man who 

 excused himself for putting a traveler on the 

 wrong road by affirming that he did not say it 

 was the right one, but just pointed it out with 

 his thumb. 



Finally, we are told that, if intentional de- 

 ception is not used, the practice is all right. 

 Just what do we imply, I should like to ask, 

 by the common phrase ' ' wrong actions " ? Is 

 it not that an action may be intrinsically un- 

 justifiable, irrespective of the agent? We are 

 not now discussing persons. We are arguing 

 whether a certain practice will or will not 

 have evil effects. If it does, it does not nec- 

 essarily follow that the person responsible for 

 it is dishonest. He may be mistaken; al- 

 though, if we did not know the man, we 

 should think it likely he was dishonest. But 

 that is a side issue, not the main point. Why 

 should we assume that, if some think they are 

 right, they are right ? A pretty pickle society 

 would be in by consistently adopting that 

 principle. 



My practice is to first grade the honey, then 

 pack it, entirely regardless of "faces," but 

 taking the sections just as they come, except 

 that occasionally, when an uncommonly good- 

 looking side of a section happens to be turned 

 out in front, I take the pains to turn it in 

 again, so as to be sure not to give the wrong 

 impression. By this means a glance at the 

 front tells the whole story. I consider that 

 method the only honest one. Mr. Snyder's 

 attitude is just right. 



Montrose, Col. 



[Now, then, it seems to me we have taken a 

 good deal of space on this question, and we 

 had better draw the discussion to a close — 

 that is, unless Mr. Doolittle cares to have 

 something more to say. He is as honest as 

 any man in our ranks, and would not be a 

 party to anj- scheme that would favor decep- 

 tion in a business transaction. — Ed.] 



