484 



THE? MMERICMlf mmm SQVRf*R.l^, 



GLESMSOFSEW. 



TUe ScientifSc Pleasantry. 



Referring to our comments on his letter 

 published on page 388, Trot. H. W. Wiley 

 has sent us the following apologetic and ex- 

 planatory, though ill-tempered, reply : 



Dear Sir;— Often, men who indulge in 

 language more becoming a tish-market than 

 the columns of a reputable journal, liave a 

 sense of fair play, and therefore i may hope 

 you will allow me a word in reply to the 

 intemperate vituperation contained in the 

 issue of the Bee Jouknal of June 13. 



You may excite the prejudices of unsus- 

 pecting readers when you call me a "wilful 

 liar," and so distinguished a scientist as Dr. 

 Shippen Wallace, a "so-called professor ;" 

 and you may gain an ephemeral notoriety, 

 when you slander the veracity of Dr. E. J. 

 Hallock— a man of unblemished reputation, 

 a scientist of the highest promise, whose 

 death too early deprived chemistry of one 

 of Its most promising students. 



We used strong language because the 

 Professor had taken no notice of the soft 

 and mild words which we had used pre- 

 viously. Our object was to cause him to 

 forsake his dignified silence, and eitlier to 

 defend his " scientific pleasantry," or to 

 own up to its falsity. But we deny that 

 we indulged in any language other than 

 might be read in the most refined and deli- 

 cate society. The Professor continues : 



In regard to the matter in question, viz., 

 the fabrication of artificial coinb— there is 

 only one opinion among informed men. 

 Such comb is used, whether as you say 

 made of purified beeswax or other materials, 

 you will be informed in due time. That a 

 wholly artificial comb had been made. Dr. 

 Hallock was fully assured. As I said in 

 my letter to Mr. Evans, he may have been 

 misinformed. He was not a "wilful liar." 

 Neither he nor I supposed at that time that 

 such comb could be made commercially 

 successful. Perhaps the day may come, 

 when by improvements in machinery it can 

 be made so. Of the probability of this, I 

 will make no certain prophecy. It would 

 have been better had I added to my article 

 in the Piipular Science Monthly such a 

 limitation as mentioned above. 



Mv statement in the Popular Science 

 Monthly was not a " wilful lie," but rested 

 on authority as reliable as oould be had. 

 The tact that I did not believe it to be com- 

 mercially practicable had nothing whatever 

 to do with the veracity of the statement. If 

 you are at all disposed to be just and hon- 

 orable yourself (which your language would 

 lead me to doubt), you will be able to see 

 the mistake into which you have Pallen. 



When "comb foundation" was first in- 

 troduced it was inappropriately called arti- 

 ficial comb by softie, and now the Professor 

 is inclined to try to extricate himself on 

 that article upon which he says, " there is 

 only one opinion among informed men— 

 such comb is used." Very true ; it is, but 

 it is made of pure beeswax, and some are 

 now making the cells }.<-iftch deep for the 

 bees to fill with honey, but that is quite 

 another thing from the charge made in the 

 " scientific pleasantry !" Theit article was 

 said te be " entirely free from bee-media- 

 tion—the comb is made of paraffine, and 

 filled with glucose, by appropriate ma- 

 chinery I" The Professor cannot get away 



on such a flimsy excuse as that ! We will 

 adopt the language of the astute Professor 

 himself : " If you arc at all disposed to be 

 just and honorable (which your language 

 would lead me to doubt), you will be able 

 to see the mistake into which you have 

 fallen." If the Professor's prescription is 

 good for anything, that dose ought to re- 

 lieve him ! The Professor now tries a neie 

 dodge in this manner : 



You may think you deceive the public in 

 your ill-advised and I fear ill-meaning en- 

 deavors to cover up the enormous adultera- 

 tion of lioney which is now practiced. I 

 have labored earnestly, in conjunction with 

 others, to determine the nature of the adul- 

 teration in honey, and the best methods of 

 detecting it, and no amount of buncombe 

 billiugsgate can drive me from the work of 

 secuiing to the honest bee-grower an hon- 

 est market. Tour statement that, " It has 

 no foundation except in the Wiley lie, when 

 any one says that comb honey is adulter- 

 ated," is false, and betrays either a pitiable 

 ignorance or a reprehensible maliciousness. 



The Professor can get no comfort from 

 such tactics. It is too well-known and in- 

 controvertibly established, for him to con- 

 tradict that the American Bee Journal 

 has valiantly fought the adulteration of 

 honey for many years. For him now to 

 attempt to create an impression that he is 

 "securing to the honest bee-grower an hon- 

 est market," and that the Bee Journal is 

 defending adulteration is simply monstrous! 

 Such an assertion " betrays either a pitiable 

 ignorance or a reprehensible malicious- 

 ness !" The Professor must here take 

 another dose of his own medicine, after 

 which we will quote from his letter the fol- 

 lowing paragraphs : 



I have the honor to send you a reprint of 

 an article in the Amerieon Apiculturist, 

 containing an analysis of three samples of 

 " Choice Coinb Honey," viz : 2, 3 and 4, 

 which consisted of almost pure starch glu- 

 cose. How this glucose got into the comb 

 I will leave you to surmise. There were 

 brave meu tiefore Agamemnon, and lona 

 before the days of Wiley, the honey of our 

 country was famous for its adulterations. 

 Hehner, a distinguished English analyst, in 

 Vol. IV of the Analyst, says : " Corn syrup 

 is actually most frequently found in honeys 

 imported from America." " Of nine Ameri- 

 can samples, seven were adulterated." " In 

 August, 1884, one Campbell was arraigned 

 before the police court of Glasgow for sell- 

 ing adulterated honey. The sample was 

 found to contain .57 per ct. of starch glucose. 

 Campbell said, in defense, that the honey 

 was warranted to him 10 be genuine Ameri- 

 can honey, and he believed it to be so. The 

 defendant was convicted." 



Commenting on these instances, I said in 

 an address to the Indiana bee-keepers, Jan. 

 23,1885: "iSvery adulteration of honey is 

 not only a fraud upon the producer, but is 

 downright robbery of the honey-growers. 

 How much more profitable would it be for 

 the apiarist, how much more satisfactory 

 to the consumer, were the people to rise in 

 the majesty of public opinion and of law, 

 and say to the world, ' The adulteration of 

 Ainercan honey is a thing of the past !' " 



The reprint article which the Professor 

 sent includes five tables, the total unre- 

 liability of which is shown by the fact that 

 samples of honey Nos. 15, 16 and 17, were ob- 

 tained from Mr. C. F. Muth, of Cincinnati— 

 a man known by every bee-keeper of promi- 

 nense to be (he essence of honor and hon- 



esty, and who has never soiled his reputa- 

 tion by adulterating honey or anything 

 else ! and yet these three samples are said 

 by Prof. Wiley to be '' Honey appnrcntly 

 adulterated ivith inverted sucrose !" Two 

 other samples obtained from Mr. Muth are 

 classed as " apparently genuine." 



Prof. Wiley had the assurance to send to 

 Mr. Muth for more samples to analyze. 

 This was indignantly refused— in these 

 words: "We kiioio what we deal in, and 

 handle only straight goods— and want noth- 

 ing more to do witli your ' apparently pure.' " 



The component parts of honey from dif- 

 ferent soils, vary so much that but few (it 

 any) can positively determine, even by 

 analysis, the purity thereof. Some candied 

 honey, ivhich we know tn be pure, was ana- 

 lyzed, a short time ago, and pronounced 

 adulterated ! 



As to the Scottish honey dealers' trial,- 

 the Professor should know that it was ex- 

 tracted honey, and not comb honey that was 

 adulterated. The full particulars may be 

 found in the American Bee Journal for 

 1884, and yet Prof. Wiley quotes it as news 

 to us four years later ! It would be ad- 

 visable for the Professor to read the Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal before attempting to 

 correct its editor, or instruct its readers. 

 The Professor concludes with this shot : 



I can see but one explanation of the fran- 

 tic attempts you are making to conceal the 

 gravity ot the fraud which is practiced on 

 the honey-growers of this country by adul- 

 teration, if you really believe there is no 

 adulteration, you are ignorant; if not ignor- 

 ant, your motive is easily understood. 

 Respectlully, H. W. Wiley. 



We are )i«t "ignorant" of the fact that 

 extracted honey wa* quite generaJly adul- 

 terated when it brought higher prices, but 

 n<ao its price is so low that it will not pay 

 to adulterate it, and it is in consequence 

 hardly ever done ! Persons will not adul- 

 terate any article when it does not pay 

 them to do so ! Adulteration of honey, 

 (now " a thing of the past,) " we fought with 

 all our energies until it ceased to exist I ! 

 To bring up that ghost now, as the Profes- 

 sor has done, is but to fight a dead issue ! 



A Brief Review of Seven Yearn. 



Now, in 1888, Prof. Wiley wants to figure 

 asthe/ric/id of "the honest bee-growt*;" 

 and the enemy of the adulterator— as the 

 defender of " an honest market" for honey, 

 and as a " detective " to pursue the sophis- 

 ticator of honey. 



But in 1881, in an address before the 

 Farmers' Institute at Crawfordsville, Ind., 

 when advising farmers to grow corn to be 

 made into glucose, he is credited in the In- 

 dltuui Farmer with saying that "really 

 better honey can be made from glucose 

 than the genuine article itself ! !" In June 

 of the same year he wrote over his oWn 

 signature to the Indiana Farmer, these 

 characteristic sentences, which were copied 

 into the Bee Journal, then, on page 370 : 



" Glucose" has the same effect on the Bee Jour- 

 nal man that a red rag has on an infuriated bull, 

 and It i&decideilly arausinK tu see the awful auger 

 which this INNOCENT taffy JacUnt can produce. 



