THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



137 



ing for instructions how to proceed in the 

 case and received replies from every mem- 

 ber. Nearly every one cautioned me not to 

 undertake to prosecute the case unless I felt 

 reasonably sure that the evidence was suf- 

 ficient to convict. 



This correspondence was then submitted 

 to the President, and his advice requested. 

 Without betraying any confidence between 

 the executive officers, I think I may say that 

 the legal advice given by President Taylor 

 was sound ; I fully concurred in his recom- 

 mendation, and carried it out. It is in my 

 possession in writing (as well as the corres- 

 pondence of the Advisory Board), and if 

 necessary to defend the Union, consent can 

 no doubt be obtained to publish it. As these 

 are private consultations between executive 

 officers, the communications must so remain 

 unless permission is given for publicity. 

 Until then the General Manager will shoul- 

 der all the blame which unwise enthusiasts 

 may wish to load on the Union for non-ac- 

 tion in the matter. 



Since then no application has been made 

 to the Union to prosecute Mr. Heddon — ex- 

 cept that he has himself very strongly urged 

 the Union to prosecute him in order to prove 

 his innocence — a thing not contemplated by 

 the Constitution, and one which would in all 

 probability not be sanctioned by its mem- 

 bers. At least, before such an innovation is 

 made, I think every member should have an 

 opportunity to express his or her opinion by 

 vote. 



It matters not how sure some may feel that 

 the evidence was sufficient, even though cir- 

 cumstantial. The law takes a cold view of 

 the matter, and demantls absolute peoof. 

 It is not a question of guilt or innocence 

 with the Union, but merely the sufficiency of 

 the evidence to convict. 



Had the accused, or his employes or con- 

 federates, been seen in the act of sophistica- 

 tion — had the adulterating material been 

 found on his premises, or anywhere in his 

 possession — had the product been obtained 

 and sealed up on his premises, and remained 

 intact until produced in court and submit- 

 ted to experts — then it would have been dif- 

 ferent. But all these links in evidence were 

 lacking ! 



The product relied upon for proof had 

 been shipped unsealed, and it was possible 

 that it might have been tampered with in 

 transit, in the warehouse where stored, or 

 on the way in its second shipment, etc. 

 Unquestionable it was a ' villainous com- 

 pound.' 



As the accused, when shown the samples, 

 positively stated after sampling them : 

 ' These samples never came from my apiary ' 

 — would not such a statement in court stand, 

 in the absence of positive testimony to the 

 contrary ? Would not the Union have lost 

 its ease — squandered its money — injured its 

 reputation, and damaged the industry if it 

 had espoused such a weak case ? 



With positive proof in its possession, the 

 Union would have prosecuted the case to the 

 full end of the law, for no condemnation is 

 too strong for a sophisticator of that God- 

 given sweet — honey ! No living being has 

 any more right to adulterate than he has to 



counterfeit 'the coin of the realm.' All the 

 Union needs is positive evidence to convict. 

 Thomas G. Newman. 

 Gen. Manager of B.-K.'s rnion." 



In the absence of positive proof that Mr. 

 Heddon has adulterated honey, he should not 

 only be given the benefit of the doubt, but 

 allowed every possible opportunity to show 

 the unreliable character of that already 

 given, and I am glad to be able to say that 

 Gleanings has reversed its former decision 

 and will allow him to defend himself in his 

 own language. 



Bee Escapes.— Black Bees vs. Italians. 



The wicked bee when none pursueth, 

 Into the snowy capping choweth. 



As I have remarked before, it is a little 

 early to talk about bee escapes, but unless 

 bee-keepers are thoroughly convinced before 

 they have honey ready to come off, that es- 

 capes are a great help and advantage, the 

 season will quite likely slip by without their 

 giving them a trial. / am thoroughly con- 

 vinced that bee escapes are really of more 

 value than the majority of bee-keepers im- 

 agine them to be, and I believe that the Re- 

 view cannot do better service than in laying 

 before its readers such testimony to their 

 value as the following, written by C. W. 

 Dayton and published in the American Bee 

 Keeper. — Ed. 



" Before the present forms of escapes were 

 invented I was aware that nearly every bee 

 could be driven hastily from a rack of sec- 

 tions with smoke, but to get every last bee 

 out before a cap is torn was absolutely im- 

 possible. One bee, or even a dozen bees, in 

 a whole rack of 21 or 28 sections may seem 

 small — one bee to two sections. If I used 

 escapes simply to rid the sections of bees, 

 my time with them would be soon over. 

 The question is not how quickly or how 

 easily they go out, but it is how much dam- 

 age they do at the time of the going, and in 

 this, one lone straggler may do more than 

 the thousand that she lags behind. 



It depends somewhat upon what kind of 

 honey we are producing If there are rows 

 of uncapped cells around the edges next to 

 the wood or along the bottom edge alone, 

 it will do but little harm if a few more cells 

 ar-e opened. It will sell about the same and 

 little notice will be taken of it. 



But suppose our honey combs are built 

 evenly and with every cell sealed pearly 

 white clear out against the wood ? In this 

 case one or two cells torn open become a 

 ' mark ' for criticism like a blunder in the 

 center of a beautiful picture. Fancy folks 

 pay fancy prices for fancy goods and choose 

 perfection as discerned by sight and it takes 

 very little to mar a faultless section of hon- 

 ey. Every cell that is bitten out counts. 



