218 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' RE VIE h. 



that line. Does Mr. Pringle want proof ? 



Continuing Mr. Pringle says "Mr. Mc- 

 Knight of Owen Sound has taken a decided 

 stand against the pure honey bill, from the 

 beginning, on the grounds that, in the lirst 

 place, it was not necessary, as the present 

 Adulteration of Foods Act, was sufficient ; in 

 the second place, it was a misuse and 

 waste of the Goverment grant to expend it 

 prosecuting the bill ; and, third, that the 

 bill as presented, should it become law, 

 would legalize the sale of what has been 

 called 'bug juice,' to wit, honey dew." 

 Here Mr. Pringle's memory fails him attain, 

 for Mr. McKnight's greatest objection to 

 the bill is, he claims, that the penalties 

 are too high. 



Now in regard to the sufficiency of the 

 Adulteration Act, I may be allowed to point 

 out that the dairymen of Canada found it 

 neceesary to the salvation of the butter and 

 cheese interests of Canada to secure some- 

 thing better than the Adulteration of Foods 

 Act ; and in order to prohibit the production 

 and sale of spurious butter an Act was pass- 

 ed with penalties from two hundred to four 

 hundred dollars ; and to prevent the produc- 

 tion and sale of spurious or filled cheese an 

 Act was secured the maximum penalities of 

 which are five hundred dollars. These laws 

 settle the whole matter, for there are no 

 violations, no persecutions — and no penal- 

 ties paid. Ours is a parallel case, and we 

 want a similar law with heavy penalities to 

 keep the reputation of Canadian honey 

 right ; but Mr. McKnight has fought it in a 

 fashion that does no credit to himself; nor 

 to the Association, and to day our industry 

 is suffering in consequence. It will be re- 

 membered that Mr. McKnight's persistent 

 opposition to the bill has prolonged the 

 struggle and greatly added to the expense. 



With regard to the bill legalizing honey 

 dew, I will say that it does not in any way 

 affect the legal status of honey dew, nor did 

 the promoters of the bill ever seek to do so : 

 that is only a cunning pretext. If Mr. Mc- 

 Knight would have the bill deal with Jioney 

 dew, let him say so, and we will discuss the 

 matter. 



Continuing Mr. Pringle says " Let it be 

 remembered that Mr. McKnight never car- 

 ried his opposition to the bill outside the 

 meetings, but confined his opposition to the 

 expression of his views on the subject in 

 open meeting. " Well, I must say it 

 exceeds my utmost comprehension how 



Mr. Pringle could put on the boldness to 

 to make that assertion, which is so wide of 

 the facts in the case, only on the assumption 

 that Mr. McKnight has deceived him. Of 

 course, Mr. McKnight gave the meeting to 

 understand it as Mr. Pringle puts it, but 

 this compels me to publish that which for 

 the honor of our Association I would rather 

 cover up. I wish it were true that Mr. Mc- 

 Knight never carried his opposition to the 

 bill outside open meetings, but unfortunate- 

 ly it is not true, for I was told at Ottowa 

 that Mr. McKnight hud v/ritteu ivhole pages 

 of fools-cap against the bill, and personal 

 ^natter against S. T. Pettit. That is the 

 kind of " honest disinterested opposition " 

 that I have had to contend with at Ottawa ; 

 yet, notwithstanding these attacks by Mr. 

 McKnight at Ottawa, no unkind words ever 

 escaped my lips there against Mr. Mcknight. 

 But he was not alone in his " honest oppo- 

 sistion " at the capital. Let me give a pic- 

 ture of the scene at that city. I was on one 

 side working faithfully for the Bill, on the 

 other side were Mr. McKnight, Mr. W. F. 

 Clark and a representative of a large adul- 

 teration firm. This trio did its level best to 

 defeat the bill ; it was a strange, incongru- 

 ous, unique composition; reputable com- 

 pany for a bee keeper to be in, but thanks 

 to the wisdom of the Association, no mem- 

 ber of the board was in it, A member of 

 Parliament told me that this adulteration 

 man was very much afraid of the bill. He 

 said if it passed in its present shape it 

 would close up that branch of their busi- 

 ness. 



Mr. Pringle complains that I applied the 

 tsrm "enemy" to Mr. McKnight. Well, so 

 I did, but it seemed harsh, and I took it 

 back right on the spot, and the government 

 report shows that 1 did so — but I don't take 

 it back noiv. The opponents of the bill call 

 its promoters "enemies," and we were 

 called enemies on the floor of the House of 

 Commons by the opponents of the Bill. 

 Now, gentle reader, judge ye who are your 

 enemies. 



At our meetings, and even at the North 

 American at Toronto, Mr. Pringle wastes 

 valuable time with special pleadings for Mr. 

 McKnight ; when will he give us a rest ? 



Mr. Pringle says " The onslaught through 

 the journal and the reports for publication 

 were not enough, but the man who dared to 

 express his honest and disinterested oppo- 

 sition to the pure honey bill must be turned 



