642 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



a little over a year ago. We had had 

 such lack in getting our honey smashed, 

 that we advised the shipper to send at 

 the higher rate. The honey came, over 

 nine-tenths broken out of the sections, 

 and we recovered over $50 damage on 

 about a ton lot of honey. 



Much might be said on the manner of 

 crating honey for shipment, so as to 

 make it reasonably safe ; but this is 

 hardly germane to my subject. 



It may surprise some of you to know 

 that it costs less to send goods to New 

 Zealand and Australia than it does to 

 Texas, Colorado, and the far Western 

 States. Ocean freight is so much per 

 cubic foot, regardless of bulk or value. 

 Bee-hives in flat, and sections packed 

 solid, go about 100 pounds to four cubic 

 feet. We have recently had a rate of 

 17k cents per foot. New York to Bris- 

 bane, Australia, which equals 70 cents 

 per 100 pounds, while the rate to the 

 Pacific Coast is just four times that, or 

 $2.80.— Read at the Ohio State Co7iven- 

 tion. 



Aifllteration of Honey, 



BYEON WALKER. 



Returning home, after an absence of 

 over a month, my attention is for the 

 first time called to an article in the col- 

 umns of the Bee Journal, page 416, 

 entitled, "Adulteration — Michigan Con- 

 vention," which would seem to require 

 some explanation on my part. 



I refer to that part of the article 

 headed, "Another Great Mistake," in 

 which the writer, after expressing his 

 indignation and horror, because of .the 

 resolutions passed by our late State Con- 

 vention with reference to the adultera- 

 tion of extracted-honey, and his convic- 

 tion that it did not represent "the sober 

 second thought, sense and knowledge of 

 the convention," undertakes, by means 

 of quotations from letters written by its 

 leading members, in reply to inquiries 

 addressed to them in relation to this 

 matter, to show that he was correct in 

 the conviction referred to, and that con- 

 sequently, "there was no foundation 

 whatever for the passage of that reso- 

 lution." "That the allegation of that 

 resolution is utterly and completely dis- 

 proven," etc., etc. 



In conclusion, the writer gives some 

 apparently excellent advice as to how to 

 proceed in punishing, by process of law, 

 these adulterators and sellers, whom he 

 has already proven, to his own satisfac- 



tion at least, to have only ^n imaginary 

 existence. 



Now, I do not propose, at this time, to 

 enter into any lengthy discussion of this 

 question, for the reason that I am too 

 busy preparing to move my family to 

 Wisconsin — where we will reside for the 

 Summer — to spare the time, had you the 

 space for publishing the same. 



Besides, as the editor of the Review 

 has seen fit to make this matter of honey 

 adulteration the special topic for this 

 month, I prefer to give what time I can 

 spare in this direction to presenting my 

 views at that time. 



It requires but a glance at the letters 

 referred to above, to show that if. any 

 body is to blame for the passage of the 

 resolution in question, I am that one. 

 Further, that while I, of all concerned,' 

 was the one to furnish your correspond- 

 ent with the information desired, I 

 wholly failed in doing this, notwithstand- 

 ing repeated requests by letter. 



My excuse for not doing so is simply 

 this : The first letter, directed to rae at 

 Capac, was not received, owing to my 

 absence fronl home, until over a week 

 after it was written ; and as the second 

 one (which also reached me about this 

 time) purported to be a coiyy of the first 

 one (and sent because the first one had 

 not been answered), whereas it was 

 wholly unlike the first one (see Bee 

 Journal, page 417), and not having the 

 slightest acquaintance with Mr. S., was 

 led to suspect that his motives in seeking 

 the information were not above criticism, 

 and so paid no attention to either letter. 



It will be noticed that in the first let- 

 ter Mr. S. stated that he was a bee- 

 keeper who simply wanted to get sam- 

 ples of the " stuff " in order to convince 

 his customers that he was selling a pure 

 article ; while in the second one (which I 

 repeat he stated was a duplicate of the 

 one previously sent) the object of the 

 writer, who professes to have had expe- 

 rience as a public prosecutor in such 

 cases, was to get information that would 

 enable him to secure the conviction of 

 the offending parties. 



Now, if Mr. S. is not willing to believe 

 the testimony of Mr. M. H. Hunt as to 

 the existence of large quantities of adul- 

 terated honey on the Detroit market, it 

 is not likely that anything that I can say 

 will convince him of the truth of the 

 statement. I will repeat, however, for 

 the information of others, what I stated 

 before the convention : That I found 

 several wholesalers and retailers of such 

 goods in that city, and also that I found 

 numerous grocers handling the same 

 goods in other cities of the State, where 



