.<!> 



dp) (5 OLDEST BEE PAPER 

 -''■ IN AMERICA ' 



VOL. XIX. 



CHICAGO, ILL., MARCH 7, 1883. 



No. 10. 



Published every Wednesday, by 



THOMAS G. NEWMAN, 



Editor and Proprietor, 



Half-Found Packages for Honey. 



In the report of the Eastern New 

 York Convention, given in this paper 

 (on page 131), it will be noticed that 

 the meeting deluded itself with tlie 

 idea that the editor of the Bee Jour- 

 nal had conspired with Boston honey 

 dealers, to force bee-keepers to use 

 half-pound sections. 



Our readers will, no doubt, smile 

 (and perhaps laugh heartily) at the 

 absurdity of that convention " making 

 a man of straw, for the purpose of 

 knocking him over." We, certainly, 

 never had such a thought or desire, 

 and do not see how any one could be 

 insane enough to impute such a thing 

 to us. The facts are these : While 

 attending the Michigan State Con- 

 vention, last December, at Kalamazoo, 

 •when the subject of " Sections for 

 Honey " was being discussed, we 

 made some remarks about conforming 

 to the requirements of the trade, as 

 to the size of sections to be used, and 

 stated that some years ago people 

 were satisfied with six-pound boxes, 

 but in this progressive age they de- 

 manded sections, holding one or two 

 pounds ; and as a fact (or item of 

 news), we stated that a Boston Arm 

 had, during the past summer, sold a 

 lot of honey in half-pound sections— 

 but we did not advocate their use, or 

 request any one to adopt such a pack- 

 age ! That this was the case is 

 proved, beyond successful contradic- 

 tion, by the report of the secretary, 

 as published in the Bee Journal, on 

 page 792 ; which distinctly says : 



" T. G. Newman remarked that he 

 icas not an advocate of half-pound sec- 

 tions; but, if they were used, they 

 should have a large surface," etc. 



Again, in an editorial in the Bee 

 Journal for Jan. 10, page 18, we 

 used this language, in reference to the 

 half-pound section : 



The Bee Journal would strongly 

 advise caution. Let it be thoroughly 

 discussed, and, then, let a few be tried 

 and, if they will increase the con- 

 sumption at good paying prices to the 

 producer, then mcrease the dose, 

 another year ; but do not attempt to 

 glut the market, else it may have the 

 opposite effect. 



Mr. Ripley (who is alike condemned 

 with us) on page 35, remarks thus : 



We have noted, with anxiety, the 

 discussion about the half-pound sec- 

 tion, and find that the demand is 

 credited to come from Boston, and we 

 want to set ourselves right with pro- 

 ducers in the matter. 



In the first place, we want it dis- 

 tinctly understood that we do not 

 advise any one to use the half-pound 

 section exclusively. Mr. F. C. Bene- 

 dict expresses our views on the sub- 

 ject perfectly in your issue of Jan. 3. 

 No producer can afford to use half- 

 pound sections exclusively. One- 

 pound .sections are small enough to 

 please 95 out of 100, and producers 

 must respond in this proportion. 



Notwithstanding all the caution, 

 our remarks are tortured to mean just 

 the opposite by that Convention, which, 

 in its report, has published to the 

 world " that Mr. Newman, editor of 

 the Bee Journal, should be censured 

 for his ofBciousness, in writing and 

 going about with Mr. Ripley, doing 

 all he could against the interest of 

 those to whom he looks for support." 



That is sublime ' Not only have we 

 not written in favor of the adoption of 

 half-pound sections, but we have cau- 

 tioned against their general use ! Nor 

 did we go anywhere with Mr. Ripley, 

 (or any other man), doing all we could 

 either for or against any section ! ! 



If those men had solemnly " Be- 

 solved " that we advocated " a return 

 to black bees and box hives," were 

 " making war upon all improvements 

 in apiculture," defended the adulter- 

 ation of honey with glucose, " to the 

 injury of the producer "—and were 

 sufficiently insane to believe that " the 



moon is made of green cheese " — they 

 would have been as near correct as 

 the "statement" and "resolution" 

 were, as published in their minutes. 



Of course, the Bee Journal has 

 published discussions concerning half- 

 pound sections, giving arguments for 

 and against them. This is in the in- 

 terest of progress and improvement, 

 and if they are not to be used, dis- 

 cussion, free and untrammeled, will 

 kill them ; but, if they are desirable 

 all the resolutions of conventions and 

 anathemas of opposers, will be as chaff 

 in the whirlwind, for 



" Truth is mighty, and wiil prevail." 



The article on page 802, so strongly 

 condemned by the " resolution," gave 

 the views of Messrs. T. P. Bingham, 

 A. I. Root, James Heddon and Dr. C. 

 C. Miller on the best size to make a 

 section to hold a half-pound of honey. 

 After giving their ideas, we remarked 

 that the small sections (meaning those 

 holding one or two- pounds) and the 

 small pails of pure extracted honey 

 had killed off adulteration, by placing 

 pure honey within reach of the masses, 

 and that " any step that will aid in 

 popularizing the consumption of honey, 

 and bring it into universal demand, 

 will be welcomed by apiarists — no 

 matter if it be a half-pound section for 

 comb honey, or a five-cent pail for the 

 extracted." This was a hint that 

 such packages were among the possi- 

 hilities, in creating a universal demand 

 for honey, but did not in any way 

 advocate their adoption. We cannot 

 see, howevei^how any bee-keeper can 

 object to the sentiment expressed. 



We are well aware that men of in- 

 fluence or position are often subjected 

 to misrepresentation and malignity 

 (be it in religion, politics or science), 

 but we had hoped (vainly, it seems) 

 that bee men would not indulge in 

 such luxuries! We have assiduously 

 labored to popularize the consumption 

 of honey, and thereby benefit pro- 

 ducers, and to be misrepresented and 

 maligned seems to be our reward ! — 

 Be it so ! We accept it as such ! 



