276 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



For tlie American Bee Journal 



My Reply to Mr. Heddoii. 



WM. F. CLARKE. 



Absence and a consequent accumu- 

 lation of work when at home, have 

 rendered it impossible for me to do 

 more than bestow a hasty glance on 

 the Bee Jouiinal for more than a 

 month past. Only to-day, while en- 

 gaged in the pleasanttask of "reading 

 up " the back numbers, I have be- 

 come aware that Mr. Heddoii had 

 been after me with " a sharp stick " 

 in the issue of March 8th. Now I 

 have a sincere respect for Mr. II., 

 and, though 1 do not rate him quite so 

 high as Prof. Cook in scientific at- 

 tainments, I have no doubt he knovs^s 

 more about bees and bee-keeping than 

 I do. Still, I do not accept him or 

 anybody else, as infallible. Hence I 

 should be sorry to have Mr. H. imagine 

 that I am either offended or con- 

 vinced, wlien I am not, and as he 

 might deduce one or other of these 

 incorrect conclusions from my silence, 

 I will say something by way of reply 

 to him. 



First of all, I must flatly contra- 

 dict his initial statement, " I have 

 just read Mr. Clarke's attack on Prof. 

 Cook." Mr. II. never read anything 

 of the kind, because I never wrote 

 anything of the kind. What he calls 

 my " attack on Prof. Cook," the Prof, 

 himself correctly designates " honest 

 and 'kind criticism," in the Bee 

 Journal of Feb. 8, page 84. That 

 was what was intended, at any rate. 

 " Attack " implies hostility in feeling 

 and intention. Men do sometimes 

 make their theories so vital a part of 

 themselves, that they regard criticism 

 as personal attack. "This is tlie very 

 essence of bigotry. 



As I cherisli only tlie most kindly 

 and respectful regard for both Prof. 

 Cook and Mr. H., I must request and 

 insist tliat " honest and kind criti- 

 cism " sliall not be labelled '■ attack." 

 If I ever so far forget myself as to 

 write anything for the Bee Journal 

 that deserves to be so called, I ]io])e 

 the editor will consign it to the obliv- 

 ion of the waste-paper basket,— its 

 jH-oper place. What ails Mr. II. that 

 he should resent so warmly and char- 

 acterize so unjustly, what Prof. Cook, 

 the party intimately concerned, had 

 already accepted in the spirit in wliich 

 it was penned V I have said tlius 

 much on this matter because it is 

 vital to the Bee Joxjrnal which will 

 be deprived of one of its most valua- 

 ble and useful features, if we cannot 

 have free discussion in its columns 

 within the bounds of courtesy. If 

 when these bounds are sacredly re- 

 spected, we are liable to be accused of 

 making " attacks," we shall soon be 

 afraid to differ from anybody, and 

 then the Bee Journal will be so 

 tame and dull, that it v;ill not be half 

 so interesting as it is now. 



Mr. H. says he has read my article 

 on Prof. C. " with much interest and 

 instruction." He adds, " I have re- 

 read it, and re-re-read it, and to save 

 my life, I can't see any argument in 

 it." 1 suppose that is intended to be 

 sharp and witty, but I am just as un- 

 able to see where the sharpness and 

 wit come in, as Mr. H. is unable to 

 see my argument. They may all be 

 "thar" however, though neither he 

 nor I can see them. Mr. II. says he 

 read ray lucubration with " much in- 

 struction," but it seems to me he got 

 precious little, not near so much as 

 he might have done, if he had been a 

 more attentive reader. " First, he 

 ' trembles ' a little more before Cook 

 than Ileddon," not a very important 

 item of information certainly, seeing 

 that the trembling was only a liarm- 

 less " goak," any how. "Second, that 

 as long as he cries out ' more proofs ' 

 he doesn't know he is beaten." For 

 "beaten" read "convinced," and 

 there will be a small modicum of in- 

 formation, if not instruction, given. 

 "Third, he recognizes no answer to 

 his wordy sarcasms, in what I liave 

 said in my reply to his attack on the 

 'pollen theory.'" Here again for 

 " attack '' read " criticism." I assure 

 Mr. H. that I do recognize liis article 

 as an " answer," but then it is not 

 satisfactory and convincing. Some 

 people can see in objects what others 

 cannot see. It is said that "love is 

 blind," but some humorist has re- 

 marked, that sweethearts see in one 

 another what nobody else can. 



Mr. H. says he "saw evidence," 

 when examining " several hundred 

 dysentery-killed colonies," that "pol- 

 len-eating caused the disease." I 

 have no doubt he thought he saw it. 

 I respect the sincerity of his convic- 

 tion, but yet do not share it. I may 

 be too exacting in the matter of evi- 

 dence. It takes less to convince some 

 than it does others. I am a natural- 

 born doubter. It takes very clear evi- 

 dence to convince me on any subject. 

 This may be more than intirniity in 

 me, — possibly a fault, but strong- 

 minded believers like Mr. H. should 

 be patient with those who are " weak 

 in the faith " like me. Mr. II. details 

 his experiment with " flour-brick," 

 and asks, " I wonder if the above ex- 

 periment will convince Mr. Clarke 

 any?" To which I reply, not much, 

 for the simple reason, that " flour- 

 brick " is not pollen, exactly. 



After all, I am only in the same un- 

 believing box with Mr. II. He says 

 in his reply to Messrs. Demaree and 

 Casson, April -t. Bee Journal, page 

 213: " I see no proof sustaining Mr. 

 D.'s premises." Mr. D. sees the 

 proof plain as daylight, Mr. H. does 

 not. In this connection, Mr. II. asks, 

 " Does Mr. Deraaree not hold some 

 stories as divinely true, wliose wit- 

 nesses lost the clieerful habit of living 

 in this world some hundreds of years 

 ago y" The only " stories " that any- 

 body holds to be " divinely true " are 

 those of the Bible, and wliile I ques- 

 tion the wisdom or propriety of such 

 an allusion in the columns of the Bee 

 Journal, yet taking my cue from 

 Mr. H., I will borrow an illustration 

 from one of them . There was a disci- 



ple who has been nicknamed aU 

 throngh the ages of the Christian era, 

 " Unbelieving Thomas." He saw no 

 proof of the resurrection, but stated 

 what evidence would convince him. 

 Possibly he asked too much. But the 

 very evidence he demanded was 

 given, and then he owned himself, 

 not " beaten," but convinced. Pile 

 on the evidence, Mr. II. As Daniel 

 Webster said, "it is the facts we 

 want." When they are furnished, I 

 shall bow to them. I think I have 

 understood that Mr. H. does not ac- 

 cept the stories he refers to as " di- 

 vinely true." If so, I am sorry, but 

 not vexed at him, nor angry with 

 him. They command my faith, and 

 I wish they did his. But I feel none 

 the less kindly towards him, because 

 he considers the evidence insuf- 

 ficient. 



Now about that "excreta" busi- 

 ness. If I am not mistaken, for T 

 write from memory, it was not that 

 " Prof. Cook has never seen the dry 

 pellets," but that he has never seen 

 proof that tliey are the feces of the 

 bee. I cited L. C. Root in addition 

 to Qninby and others as holding the 

 opinion that the " dry pellets " were 

 the excreta of bees. Is it fair to call 

 the evidence of such witnesses " un- 

 defined observations," less worthy of 

 credence than his own " careful ex- 

 aminations ?" 



I am astonished at Mr. H.'s bold 

 assertion that Dr. Donhoff's " subject 

 for analysis was dysentery excreta." 

 It was nothing of the sort, but nat- 

 ural, healthy, normal, ordinary ex- 

 creta, taken from the rectum of the 

 bee. If therefore it proves anything, 

 it proves just what I stated, that pol- 

 len forms part of the food of adult as 

 well as young bees. 



Mr. H. tells us that when he uses 

 the plural of majesty, he speaks not 

 only for himself, but for Mrs. II. "and 

 the children." He says, " our opinion 

 is the opinion of all of us." Happy 

 family ! If the Ileddon family is thus 

 " like kindred drops, that mingle into 

 one " — if he never speaks for liimself 

 alone, but always for " we, us & Co.," 

 he has my full permission to use the 

 plural of majesty every tune ! But I 

 am reminded of a little incident. In 

 a social gathering not 100 miles from 

 where I write, a fond husband re- 

 marked that he and his wife had been 

 married, I forget how many years, 

 without ever liaving a difference. A 

 married lady present exclaimed : 

 " What a dull time they must have 

 had !" But if the entire family is al- 

 ways Deliind Mr. H.'s pen, he is a 

 more formidable man than the Pro- 

 fessor, unless all the Cooks uniformly 

 back up " tlie head of the house !" 

 Plainly I liave not " trembled " 

 enougli, and must try to feel more 

 awed in future. 



" What ails Mr. Heddon ?" I wish 

 I knew. It seems to me that pollen 

 or something has turned sour on his 

 stomach toward me. I would like to 

 sweeten liim u|) if I knew how. But 

 I can't say I believe what I don't, 

 even to make him good-natured and 

 pleasant. If I have ever said an un- 

 kind, harsh, or disrespectful word of 



