298 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



business progress, it is no doubt better for 

 me that the journals in question have not 

 mentioned the Quarterly, I will never cen- 

 sure any one for not mentioning me or 

 mine; I only a^k that when they do, they 

 will ttrll the truth and the whole truth. My 

 reason for calling and re-calling attention to 

 their attitude toward the "new-born," was 

 to offer further evidence of facts I had pre- 

 viously st teJ, coucerning wrongs which 

 some of these journals had perpetrated upon 

 me. The ignoring of the Quarterly certain- 

 amounts to proof positive in this 

 direction. Why should I noxo want them to 

 notice the Quarterly ? All the other journals 

 have done so, and also inserted my adver- 

 tisement (except the Api. which I supposed 

 was dead, as I had heard so, and it didn't 

 come to my desk.) How mauy subscribers 

 have these journals that do not kuow of the 

 existence of the Quarterly, after all the other 

 journals have advertised it and I have mailed 

 out many thousand sample copies ? Tiie 

 course these journals have pursued, aud are 

 yet pursuing, is a course they cannot fol- 

 low ; one they cannot maintain. Their po- 

 sition, not only regarding the Quarterly, but 

 many other things, is too untenable to stand 

 the shot aud shell of any journal which tells 

 the truth, without the opportunity of their 

 replying. 



Gleanings may claim, as I think it has, 

 that it did mention the Quarterly, but it did 

 not make any formal mention, such as is 

 usually made, and the first really editorial 

 mention was suggested by a circular I issued, 

 stating that the Quarterly had been rejected 

 by the government as second class matter, 

 and that the same matter would be mailed 

 under the title of the Bee-Keeper's, extra 

 edition of The Dowagiac Times. Gleaniugs 

 embraced this opportunity to reiterate my 

 first mention, but very carefu'ly avoided the 

 second, giving its readers the idea that the 

 Quarterly was no more. 



In answering your editorial, it becomes 

 proper and I trust your readers will pardon 

 me for embracing the opportunity of admit- 

 ting some of your statements which seem to 

 me to favor my side of this serious and im- 

 portant question ; important to the success 

 of honey producers (and inventors who do 

 most to aid them) because it is a fact that 

 during the past few years, while our litera- 

 ture has been increasing in quantity, it has 

 fearfully degenerated in quality. I refer to 

 your statements that each number of the 



Quarterly has been better than the one pro- 

 ceeding it ; that Bro. Heddon is an unusually 

 bright bee-keeper ; that he is really what 

 might he called brilliant ; that you doubt 

 if there is a bee-keeper in the country who 

 can make more clear money out of honey 

 producing, and that in the Quarterly this 

 same Heddou is unfolding the different plans 

 whereby he is enabled to raise honey so 

 cheaply. For argument's sake, let us sup- 

 pose these statements to be true ; aud cer- 

 tainly I know of no Bro. from whom such 

 statements would carry more force, because 

 we not only know that you are an excellent 

 publisher, but a past and present practical 

 and successful honey-producer. If what you 

 say is true, added to what Prof. Cook and 

 many others have said, viz., that Heddon is 

 a good writer and thinker, don't you think, 

 that in his cool, deliberate moments, Hed- 

 don knows what he is doing for himself and 

 for others, in his endeavor to improve our 

 bee literature in his own characteristic way ? 



You also state that it is bad "policy" to 

 " take off our gloves " and strike straight 

 from the shoulder at the abuses I have pre- 

 viously mentioned. Who, do you think, is a 

 better judge of policy than the politician 

 from whence he derives his name ? I sup- 

 pose the lawyer knows something of cause 

 and effect ; that he is somewhat of an analy- 

 zer and advocate. Do either of these classes 

 go honey-fugling about, beating around the 

 bush, when they endeavor to prove a fact ? 

 You are simply mistaken, Bro, Hutchinson. 

 Abuses, must be corrected, with " gloves 

 off." Every government on earth, acts ac- 

 cording to this policy. 



At our house, we have just been enlarging 

 and building on a kitclieu and dining room, 

 and we had to tear down before we could re- 

 build, for we could not evade the rule that 

 " chaos comes before order," and that two 

 bodies cannot occupy tha same space at the 

 same time. The same law holds good in the 

 metaphysical world ; a man cannot harbor 

 truth and error at the same time on the same 

 subject, and it is just as legitimate and just 

 as necessary, in this cleansing of our litera- 

 ture, that we clear out the present corrup- 

 tion, making room for the truth, as that you 

 destroy the old box hive when transferring 

 into the movable frame. 



You accuse me of being sarcastic and prid- 

 ing myself upon handling questions with my 

 " gloves off." While I regret the manner in 

 which you did it, I sincerely thank you for 



