188 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Mar. 1. 



is useless to throw the leaflets on porches, or 

 throw them broadcast anywhere. Wasted am- 

 munition really does more harm than good. 

 She is very careful about the distribution of 

 her leaflets. If she hands one out she draws 

 attention to the value of the honey recipes, 

 and to the interesting matter regardirg honey 

 and its production. She also mails a leaflet 

 to all her customers, at the same time adding 

 a word to the effect that she has the right kind 

 of honey — the very kind that is described in 

 the leaflet itself. 



WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HOLTERMANN? 

 PREJUDICE OR CARELESSNESS — WHICH ? 



In the December issue of the Canadian Bee 

 Journal appeared a general criticism of plain 

 sections. Referring to a statement in our cat- 

 alog, that the new sections, when filled with 

 honey, would bring a higher price because 

 they are better filled out, Mr. Holtermann 

 said: 



If this can be done, how is it that at Toronto, Lon- 

 don, and Ottawa exhibitions the plain sections did not 

 distinguish themselves by capturing the prizes on 

 comb honey? The comb honey in the plain section 

 was shown at Toronto, but secured nothing. 



Our readers will remember that I referred 

 to this in our issue for December loth last. 

 While I did not deny his statement I was sur- 

 prised, because plain sections had held their 

 own, and more than that, at other shows. 

 Soon after Gleanings was out I received the 

 following letter having reference to Mr. Hol- 

 termann 's statement above: 



I might say here that I gave the no-beeway sections, 

 4%x4%\ a trial this season, and I am well pleased with 

 them. I used about 1200 of them alongside of the 

 open-end or slotted section, 4^x4%'xlfs, with plain 

 separators. This winter I am changing all of my su- 

 pers to no beeway. I find that I can get from % to 

 1 cent more for no-beeway in the Toronto and Kings- 

 ton markets. I sent 12 sections to Mr. Hill, one of the 

 officials of the Toronto exhibit, and paid my footing 

 and express both ways. I called unexpectedly at 

 Toronto the last week of the fair, and my honey was 

 still in Manager Hill's office, not opened. I opened it, 

 and showed it to Mr. Holtermann. That is the no- 

 beeway that did not take the prize that he has so 

 much to say about in the Canadian Bee Journal, and I 

 am positive there were no more, for I looked very 

 closely, and asked two of the honey-exhibitors if there 

 were any, and they said no— that they wished there 

 were Mr. Holtermann is a friend of mine — that is, a 

 business friend — but I like justice in all things. 



C. E. Taylor. 



Harrowsmith, Ont., Can., Dec. 28, 1898. 



This letter I referred to Mr. Holtermann for 

 an explanation. After some correspondence 

 it was agreed that he was to make suitable 

 correction in his own journal; but when in his 

 next number he attempted to excuse himself 

 rather than make a full correction, I was sur- 

 prised. This is what he says: 



In my article on plain sections I did not mean to say 

 that honey in plain sections had been shown at the 

 leading fairs, but that, if it had produced so superior 

 an article, why did it not take some of the prizes at 

 those fairs? Again at Toronto, plain sections were 

 entered and sent to the exhibition. I saw them there, 

 but through an oversight they were not judged. Yet 

 they simplv were not in it for best-filled and cleanest 

 sections. Although it would have been netter to make 

 this explanation, it did not occur to me to do it, as it 

 did not affect the position as to their merit. 



Mr. Holtermann says they "were entered 

 and sent to the exhibition;" that he "saw 

 them there," as if he were still trying to con- 

 vey the impression that they were on exhibi- 



tion, as, forsooth, he "saw them." To this 

 Mr. Taylor says they were in Manager Hill's 

 office when Mr. Holtermann "saw them." 

 Mr. H. says, again, "Through an oversight 

 they were not judged." Not judged ? How 

 could they be if they were shut up in the box 

 they came in from the express office in "Man- 

 ager Hill's office"? And was the "oversight" 

 in not judging or in not opening the box? And 

 even if they had been judged, he says they 

 "were not in it." Mr. R. F. H.'s prejudice is 

 so apparent in this case, that, if he had been 

 judge, they would not have "been in it," 

 that's sure. 



Here is what one of our correspondents, re- 

 ferring to this same attempt at explanation, 

 says: 



He doesn't admit that he said any thing unfair, 

 when he before said practically what was both unfair 

 and untrue. He now says plain sections were entered 

 and sent, but not judged. Why doesn't he say they 

 were not exhibited? If he were entirely fair he would 

 have said something like this: "I said in a former 

 number, ' The comb honey in the plain section was 

 shown at Toronto, but secured nothing.' That was 

 incorrect. The truth is that honey in plain sections 

 was not shown there, and had no chance to secure 

 recognition, even if it had been twice as good as any 

 shown." Indeed, if we may indulge the hope that 

 Mr. Holtermann is entirely truthful, there is no power 

 that can prevent him from saying so yet, at the earli- 

 est opportunity. And what explanation is there for 

 their being where they were privately seen (if I have 

 the right idea) by Holtermann and others, and Hol- 

 termann, in the interest of fairness, didn't see that 

 they were exhibited? 



I can not think that Mr. Holtermann meant 

 to deliberately misrepresent or to act unfairly; 

 but prejudice or carelessness, seemingly, has 

 so warped his memory that he failed to set 

 forth the facts as they were — that is, if Mr. 

 Taylor's version is correct. I have letters 

 from others, stating that there were no plain 

 sections on exhibition at Toronto. We are all 

 liable to unconscious prejudice or mistakes; 

 but when they are once pointed out, one does 

 not lessen his self-respect by " acknowledging 

 the corn." 



THE NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' UNION. 



A report has been sent to the members, 

 showing the result of the last election. Only 

 76 votes were cast in all. Out of this number 

 General Manager Newman received 71 ; and 

 R. L. Taylor, for President, 44; but both Mr. 

 Taylor and Prof. A. J. Cook "positively de- 

 cline to accept any office " in the Union; and 

 General Manager Newman says: "I feel that, 

 in justice to myself, this must be the last time 

 that I can accept the office. . . I would 

 cheerfully give counsel at any time, or accept 

 a position on the Advisory Board, or take the 

 office of President." When two of the main 

 props of the organization decline to accept 

 office again, and when its General Manager 

 himself says that this must be the last time 

 that he can accept the office, it would seem, in 

 my humble judgment, that now is the time to 

 marry the weaker to the stronger, the United 

 States Bee-keepers' Union. Thomas G. New- 

 man, with his long experience, would be a 

 valuable member of the Board of Directors; 

 and now that the new Union has 465 members, 

 and is in a flourishing condition, it would 

 seem as if this were the very thing to do. I 



