THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



/ 



243 



Blunderers in Hlgli Places. 



The Imliuna Farmer, of recent date, 

 has the following article, which will 

 be read with interest not unmingled 

 with contempt, by all honey prodncers 

 in this country : 



Gov. Porter, in his address at Co- 

 hiinbus, before the Farmers' Institute, 

 said in reference to glucose, that it is 

 converted into a choice syrup that is 

 extensively used as a table syrup, and 

 exceedingly attractive in appearance. 

 In its taste it resembles more than any 

 other sweet, the maple syrup. A 

 honey is manufactured fnun it tliat is 

 not distinguishable in taste from tlie 

 lioney of the bee, and, both in a liquid 

 formand in a comb manufactured by 

 some artilicial process and undistin- 

 guishable from bees' comb,is sold most 

 extensively as bees' honey. I'rof. 

 Riley, before the- Institute at Cravv- 

 fordsville, repeated in sum and sub- 

 stance about the same thing, adding 

 that really better honey could be made 

 from glucose, than the genuine article 

 itself. It is undoubtedly a good thing 

 for corn growers, so tVu-'as the sale of 

 corn goes, that so much of it is con- 

 sumed in the manulacture of glucose, 

 so also that so much corn is used in 

 the manufacture of whisky. 



That a politician who delivers ad- 

 dresses before farmers' institutes 

 should make such gross blunders as 

 are attributed to Gov. Porter, is not 

 to be wondered at, especially when we 

 take into consideration that the very 

 swindlers^who are imposing upon the 

 public with their glucose imitations 

 have perhaps made it convenient tor 

 him to see things in that light ; but it 

 is a serious reflection either upon his 

 judgment or his candor, to suppose he 

 knows anything of what he is talking 

 about. We do wonder, however, at 

 the recklessness of Prof. Riley in some 

 of his reputed assertions, especially 

 the addendum above, and hope th^t 

 his address has been incorrectly re- 

 ported. If his conclusions regarding 

 entomology are as conveniently ar- 

 rived at as are those relating to food 

 economy, we fear his posthumous rep- 

 utation as a scientist will scarcely 

 survive the obituary. There is no 

 justification for such blunders. That 

 it is impossible to make a superior 

 honey from glucose any reflecting in- 

 dividual may convince himself, if the 

 trouble be taken to sample the genuine 

 lioney and counterfeit article together. 

 Even the counterfeiters find it neces- 

 sary to use a portion of genuine 

 honey, either extracted or comb, to 

 give flavor to their stuff. It is about 

 time, however, that we should hear no 

 more regarding the artificial comb 

 honey. It is no credit to any person's 



intelligence to believe the story ; and 

 the scientist impeaches his own relia- 

 bility when he asserts that artilicial 

 comb is manufactured by machinery, 

 filled with glucose, and capped over 

 independent of the labor of the bees. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



Paying Your Money but not Having 

 Your Choice. — Mr. Zopha Mills, Jr., 

 of New i'ork, sends iis the following 

 excellent article from the New Y'ork 

 Journal of Commerce, published under 

 the above caption : 



" If people do not like glucose they 

 need not buy it." This is the lierakVs 

 comment on what it calls "unneces- 

 sary legislation." Unfortunately the 

 dictum does not square with the facts. 

 The sale of glucose does not depend 

 on the like or dislike of the people. 

 They never see and know glucose sold 

 by that name. "O ! no, we never 

 mention it ; its name is never heard," 

 the grocers would say if asked if they 

 kept glucose for sale. It masquerades 

 undera hundred fancy titles of syrups, 

 or gives a deceitful whiteness to 

 coarse brown sugar ; but in all its 

 protean changes it never once reap- 

 pears as glucose. If one of the IlerukVs 

 readers should start out with the de- 

 termination to buy glucose, and see 

 whether he liked it or not, he could 

 not find any— sold as such. It is not 

 advertised in any newspaper. It is 

 not quoted in atiy market report. It 

 is not placarded in any corner gro- 

 cery. It has no recognized existence 

 among the "people," but is only 

 known to tho.se who are in the secret 

 of its uses for purposes of adultera- 

 tion or substitution. Until it is sold 

 openly for what it really is, and not 

 for something else, the people's prefer- 

 ences cannot be said to be consulted. 

 The average citizen is not a chemist. 

 lie has no sure and ready means of 

 telling whether his milk is watered or 

 chalked, his beer and wliisky doc- 

 tored, his butter larded and his syrup 

 Of sugar robbed of half its sweetening 

 power by the admixture of glucose. 

 If he is defrauded by adulterations, he 

 has a right to complain. It is not a 

 sufticient answer to say that he is not 

 obliged to buy such impositions un- 

 less he w'ants them. As we have 

 shown, he cannot buy glucose wet or 

 dry (under its real name) of his grocer, 

 however much he wants to try it. lie 

 might as well ask a milkman for 

 watered milk, or a liquor-seller for 

 turpentine gin, or a confectioner for 

 candy with .50 per cent, of tei-ra alba. 

 Such articles are never to be had by re- 

 tail consumers on inquiry. We there- 

 fore cannot accept the dogma of our 

 contemporary as entirely fair to the 

 people, since it is not possible to con- 



sult their tastes, while glucose, like 

 oleomargarine, is never sold to them 

 on its own merits. No reasonable 

 man asks that the manufacture and 

 sale of these substances shall be 

 stopped. It is not alleged against 

 them that they are poisonous or dele- 

 terious so far as known. Tliey may 

 have their proper places anu.uig the 

 foods of the people. Rutolpcimargar- 

 ine is not butter, either " gilt-edged," 

 " creamery " or " prime dairy." Glu- 

 cose is not " maple syrup " any more 

 than it is " bees' honey." Even if its 

 healthfulness were admitted — of 

 which we are by no means assured — 

 it suflices to object that the pockets of 

 the people as well as their stomachs 

 need to be guarded against frauds in 

 food. Will some manufacturer of 

 oleomargarine or glucose be candid 

 enough to give a single good reason 

 why his product should not be always 

 sold under its own name V 



A Standard Frame.— Mr. Wm. Riatt, 

 in the Loudon Journal of Horticulture, 

 remarks as follows on the subject of 

 deciding upon a standard frame for 

 Great Britain : 



I am pleased to observe that the 

 British Bee-Keepers' Association has 

 resolved on the discussion of the ques» 

 tion of a standard frame to be 

 " stamped with its sanction and au- 

 thority." This Association now hap- 

 pily occupies such a paternal relation 

 to bee-keepers generally as, I think, 

 justifies it in at least attempting to 

 grapple with this question. The pity 

 is that it could not liave been done 

 years ago. 



Then, even though a bee-keeper 

 adopts and determinedly adheres to a 

 size of his own, he often finds himself 

 in a difliculty when, through purchase 

 or present, he may become the owner 

 of a colony in another hive. Neither 

 can he exchange or borrow a frame 

 or two of brood, honey, or empty 

 comb without in many cases having 

 to make a transfer to his own frames, 

 or tolerate an odd-sized frame for a 

 time. And, after all, it can scarcely 

 be said that any of the leading frames 

 in use are other than arbitrary in 

 dimensions. The discussion of the 

 question, though opportune, is thus 

 beset with great difliculties, and its 

 settlement can scarcely fail to create 

 uniileasant feelings somewhere. We 

 may foresee, however, that if a de- 

 cision is arrived at at all, it must be 

 in the adoption of some style of frame 

 at present extensively used. 



As a small contribution to the dis- 

 cussion from the Scottish point of 

 view, and from one who does not 

 make hives for sale, I may safely 

 affirm that we in Scotland are all but 

 unanimous in using what I may call 

 the Scottish Woodbury frame. Mr. 

 Woodbury probably adopted the in- 

 ternal dimensions of his hive, iil4 

 inches square, from the calculation 

 that ten combs would occupy about 

 the space of 14J.^ inches. We may, 

 however, dismiss the idea of length — 

 that is, measuring across the combs— 

 as it is evident that hives may profits 

 ably contain more than ten frames. 



