334 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



busy with the great trust evil. All 

 classes who are not actually benefited 

 by trusts stand in dread of them. 

 Trusts dread each other. Through the 

 oppression of one trust, another trust 

 is formed. Judge Brewer has express- 

 ed his fear that, in a great future 

 struggle between capital trusts on the 

 one band, and labor combines on the 

 other, our Republic will go down. 

 He says that legislation is unable to 

 successfully handle these questions. 

 Who could be expected to know better 

 the power of legislation? His hope in 

 the great future smash lies in the 

 Americans who will be out of trusts 

 and labor unions; which, from present 

 indications, will be very few in five 

 years. 



From the above it would seem that 

 the general tendencies of trusts are 

 bad. Largely they are, but not neces- 

 sarily. But some say, "We don't want 

 a honey trust; we want a honey ex- 

 change. Few sentences should be 

 wasted on that class, as it is more 

 profitable to write to those who think. 

 The "chills" or "shakes" are as serious 

 as old fashioned "ague" regardless of 

 the name. 



But the evils from which society 

 would gladly flee, which so often re- 

 sult from trust-rule, are not necessary. 

 Trusts can exist and do much good 

 without having the evil so justly com- 

 plained of. Competitive methods are 

 wasteful. All the hens' eggs consign- 

 ed to San Francisco could be handled 

 by one house. The eggs could be 

 handled for much less commission 

 than now. The eggs could be handled 

 by a much lighter force; less cost for 

 rent, light, fuel, insurance, taxes, etc. 

 What could the other men so displaced 

 do? They could come out in the coun- 

 try and produce more eggs. That 

 should be a good monopoly. But, with 

 the power thus given, the temptation 

 is ever present to use that power 



against the public. But suppose all 

 the chicken raisers combine and have 

 sale.smen to handle their eggs. The 

 cost to consumers need not be raised; 

 the business could be run on strictly 

 legitimate lines; and it would be an 

 honorable trust; my ideal, and almost 

 up-to-date. I think honey usually costs 

 the consumer as much now as it 

 should. 



If it is right to have a honey trust, 

 it is necessary; it cannot be necessary 

 unless it is right. In Gleanings (page 

 847) Stenog. quotes Mr. York on the 

 cigarette evil: "But it pays in dollars 

 and cents, don't you know? That's 

 the test now-a-days. What does a 

 few thousand boys amount to if some 

 one can make a few more dollars?" 

 As irony that is all right, but let's 

 not put it into practice. According to 

 the golden rule, we surely should have 

 a voice in fixing the price of our hon- 

 ey. Have we? Little if any. Trusts 

 make trusts. Manufacturing concerns 

 can say, "Your honey is worth three 

 cents," and that settles it. Even then 

 our present method of getting the 

 three cents is wasteful and unhandy. 



A serious foe is the can-trust. We 

 may never be able to make tin; again 

 we may. At the present price of tin, 

 there is a big leak that might be at- 

 tended to. Individuals cannot do it; 

 State bee-keepers' societies cannot; 

 the National Association may. 



If the present agitation takes tang- 

 ible form, I expect to embark, if my 

 honey is to be in the power of an hon- 

 est man or a stranger. If I know the 

 man to be tricky, you can mark me 

 down on the missing list History 

 sometimes repeats— Judges 9:8-15. A 

 Mclntyre or a Mendelson is not like- 

 ly to hunt for such work. But we 

 have all the good men we need, and I 

 shall be glad to see the good work go 

 on. 



Modesto, Cal., October 28, 1902. 



