390 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 15, 



the work of aiding prosecutions against the 

 sale of adulterated honey, it becomts my duty 

 to lay before our members, many of whom 

 are readers of your journal, the facts gleaned 

 in the performance of that duty, no matter 

 how unpleasant the factsare to me personally. 

 Yours truly, " EuGENE Secor. 

 Forest City, Iowa, May 3. 



Hon. Eugene Secor, General Manager of the Nation- 

 al Bee-keepers' Association, 



Dear Sir: — In complying with your request for a re- 

 port of the proceedings in the case of Mr. M. G. Hakes, 

 of Jackson, Mich., who was arrested, and tried in the 

 Circuit Court of Jackson County for the sale of adul- 

 terated honey, I have this to report : 



On the '22th of January, last, I received a request 

 from you to attend the trial of Mr. Hakes, as the rep- 

 resentative of our Association, and do what I could to 

 help in the prosecution of the ca.se that was to bctried 

 on the 23d. In compliance with your request I attend- 

 ed the trial. I learned that, last fall. Mr. W. D. Soper, 

 a bee-keeper living near Jackson, Mich., and who also 

 deals in honey, discovered that what he thought was 

 adulterated extracted honey was being placed upon 

 the market at Jackson. He bought a sample of the 

 honey, and sent it to the Michigan State Dairy and 

 Food Commissioner. On September 29, 189!t, Mr. Cail 

 Frankie a State Food Inspector, of Monroe, on his 

 regular inspection - tour at Jackson, called at Mr. 

 Hakes' place of business and purchased of him two 

 one pint cans of what he was selling for honey, one 

 of them being labeled, and ready for the market, and 

 the o.her was taken from the original package, a five- 

 gallon can. Mr. Frankie explained to Mr. Hakes that 

 it was his duty " to keep tab on all the foods that were 

 exposed for s4le, and also on honeys," and asked him 

 to sell him a package of honey, which he did willing- 

 ly. The cans were labeled " M. G. Hakes, Pure Honey, 

 Jackson, Mich." _ . 



At the trial of Mr. Hakes in the Circuit Court for 

 the county, in Jackson, Mr. Frankie stated, in sub- 

 stance, while on the witness-stand, that when food 

 samples were procured for inspection, certain records 

 were made, and in this case the record of the Inspect- 

 or showed that, in the sale of this adulterated honey, 

 Martin G. Hakes acted as agent, and that the manu- 

 facturer was James Heddon, of Dowagiac, and the 

 package was marked " Pure Extracted Honey," and 

 was purchased of Mr. Heddon about Aug. 21, 1899. 



Another witness, the Food and Sanitary Inspector 

 of Jackson, testified that the original package from 

 which the sample of honey in question was taken had 

 not been opened till Mr. Frankie opened it, and that 

 Mr. Hakes acted as agent " for a Mr. Heddon, of Dow- 

 Mr. Frankie, on cross examination, testified that 

 other samples from Mr. Heddon's place, than the 

 one under consideration had been sent to the State 

 Analyst, and all were adulterated to about the same 

 extent as this, except one of comb honey. 



Mr. R. E. Doolittle, State Chemist, of Ivansing, 

 Mich , testified to having examine 1 the sample under 

 consideration, and found it to be adulterated honey. 

 The per cent of adulteration I do not now remember, 

 but it was large ; I believe about 57 per cent of glucose. 



Mr. Doolittle, in reply to a question by the attorney 

 for Mr. Hakes, said that he had always had the im- 

 pression that Mr. Hakes was only the agent for Mr. 

 Heddon, and that Mr. Heddon had done the mixing. 



In reply to the question, " Was this honey repre- 

 sented to you as pure by Mr. Heddon? " Mr. Hakes 

 testified that, a few davs before he was arrested (he 

 was arrested Oct. 11, 1899), he was told that he was 

 selling adulterated honey, and he said that he wrote 

 Mr Heddon a letter, telling him that one man, a 

 stranger, had offered to bet him $25.00 that the honey 

 was not pure, and Mr. Hakes told him that he " would 

 put up the money with him any minute ; but before I 

 would do it I sat down and wrote a letter to Mr. Hed- 

 don, and said to Mr. Heddon, ' I want to know now, 

 Mr. Heddon, if I am selling pure honey, or if I am 

 not.' He wrote me back, stating that ' if my honey 

 goes from me to you, and from you directly to your 

 customers, just as you get it from me, rely upon it, it 

 is strictly pure ; but,' said he, ' I would not bet ; ' that 

 is the first thing that opened my eyes." 



At the close of Mr. Hakes' testimony the court in- 

 structed the jury, and they returned a verdict of guil- 

 ty, without leaving their seats. 



I felt prettv well satisfied that Mr. Hakes supposed 

 he was selling pure honey, and I believed that the 



members of our Association cared more for the con- 

 viction of those guilty of selling adulterated honey, 

 and stopping the practice, than to punish a party who 

 seemed so innocent of fraud as Mr. Hakes ; and, being 

 under that impression, I asked the court to impose 

 the lightest penalty the law would allow, which the 

 court did, fining him 825 00, which I believe was paid 

 by some of Mr. Hakes' friends. 



As an officer of an organization that has for one of 

 its objects the prevention of the adulteration of honey 

 I was very much interested in this case; and as the 

 evidence seemed to indicate pretty clearly that Mr. 

 Heddon was guilty of selling adulterated honey, and 

 that he did the adulterating himself, I have taken 

 some pains to learn if he really was engaged in such 

 business ; and the first thing to hand is BulU tin No. 

 50, of the Michigan Dairy and Food Department, and 

 under the head ' Houej- " I find this : 



" No. A 298. Sample of honey (brand ' Pure Extract- 

 ed Hoiiej' ') taken from original package at Jackson. 

 Sold (1899) by M. G. Hakes, Agent, Jackson Produc- 

 er, James Heddon, Dowagiac." Then follows a state- 

 ment of the analysis of the sample, and following 

 this are the words, '" Glucose flavored with honey." 



On the ."-ame page of the Bulletin on which the above 

 appears are three other similar reports in which each 

 sample examined was marked " Pure E.xtracted Hon- 

 ey. Producer, James Heddon, Dowagiac," and each 

 exhibit is marked " Glucose flavored with honey " 



On the next page of the Bulletin are two more re- 

 ports, similar to the above, in which James Heddon 

 appears as the " producer " and Mr. Hakes as "agent," 

 and I believe it is claimed there was about the same 

 amount of adulteration in each sample as in the one 

 for the sale of which Mr. Hakes was convicted — about 

 57 per cent. 



In an article which appeared in the Farm Journal, 

 of Philadelphia, for January, 1900, in an editorial, un- 

 der the heading " Food Adulterations " the editor says, 

 " Some important facts on this subject are found in 

 the recently issued Bulletin No. 50 of the Dairy and 

 Food Department of the State of Mich gan. . . . 

 Eight samples of honey, variously marked as ' Pure 

 Extracted,' ' York State,' etc., were found to be only 

 glucose flavored with honey. Six of these samples 

 claimed to be produced by a person having a name 

 well known and honored among beekeepers," etc. 

 The other two samples are marked " Produce r, Steele- 

 Wedels Co., Chicago. 111. 



On Feb. 8, 1900, Mr. Wm. A. Selser, chemist, of 

 Philadelphia, makes this report; "This is to certify 

 that 1 have analyzed the sample of honey sent, mark- 

 ed No. 1, bought of James Htddon by L,. H. Warren, 

 Jennings, Mo., and found the same to be 52 per cent to 

 54 per cent adulterations of gluco.se," and on the same 

 date Mr. Selser certifies that another sample sent him 

 and " bought of James Heddon by L. H. Warren, Jen- 

 nings, Mo.." was found to contain " 58 per cent to (30 

 per cent of glucose." 



Wishing lo know what Mr. Warren had to say, I 

 wrote him, March 12, ult , and in his reply, dated 

 Mari.h 17, 1900. he says, "I bought seventy 601b. cans 

 of extracted honey from James Heddon, which I re- 

 ceived as follows," and gives the number of cans re- 

 ceived at different times, 5 cans in September, 1899 ; 

 15 cans at each of two shipments in November, and 

 35 cans by two shipments in December. 



Mr. Warren says. " It may seem strange to you that 

 I bought so much, and will explain. The first lot of 5 

 cans which I got as a sort of sample was adulterated 

 very little ; but every lot got worse ; a small sample 

 of this lot which I have on hand now has gianulated 

 solid, but streaked ; another lot only looks cloudy. . 

 The last lot does not granulate any more than any 

 other glucose. . . Analysis of this shows 58 per 

 cent to 6U per cent glucose. . . Only about 200 lbs. 

 of the last lot was turned back on me. . . I had no 

 suspicion of this honey being adulterated until I had 

 dispo.sed of nearly all of it. . . After I found out 

 that the honey was not pure I wrote to Heddon, ask- 

 ing for a written guarantee of its purity. . . . He 

 wrote back, ' I take pleasure in certifying that I ship- 

 ped you pure extracted honey.' " 



Mr Warren is a member of the firm of Warren & 

 Mange, dealers in staple and fancy groceries, flour, 

 feed, and general merchandise. 



In a letter written by Mr. Heddon on Feb. 15, 1900, 

 he says that Mr. Hakes " never sold honey for me. 

 //f ^o^/^/^/ o/ »z^, paying cash in advance. . . I ship- 

 ped him pure honey, and I rather tliink that he sold it 

 as I shipped it to him. Of course, I do not know ; and, 

 so far as my persona/ interest is concerned, / do not 

 care. . . I think I have had ample evidence that 

 chemists can not tell adulterated from pure honey. 



