TX 3 1924 063 135 457 ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY THE WILEY "HONEY" LIE A SCIENTIFIC PLEASANTRY DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924063135457 THE SO-CALLED "HONEY LIE.' " In commercial hon^y which is entirely free from bee mediation, the comb is made of paraffine and filled with pure glucose by appropriate machinery. " This honey for whiteness and beauty rivals the cele- brated real white-clover honey of Vermont, but can be sold at an immense profit at one-half the price." (Extract from an article by H. W. Wiley in the Popular Science Monthly for Jnne, 1381, p. 254.) TX 5foO A "SCIENTIFIC PLEASANTRY.' On page 243 of the BEE JOURNAL we published, under the heading, "Blunderers in High Places," an ex- cerpt from the Indiana Farmer, attributing reckless lan- guage to Governor Porter, of Ohio, and unscientific as- sertions to Prof. Eiley. A recent number of the Fa/rmer reprints our article with a criticism or rejoinder from a Mr. H. W. Wiley, which is certainly original in its style, if not very witty. Following are his remarks : " The above extract from a recent number of the BEE JOURNAI. is such a successful piece of humor that one not acquainted with its origin should assig^n it to Mark Twain. * G-lucose ' has the same effect on the BEE JOVKNAL. man that a red rag has on an infuriated bull, and it is decidedly amusing to see the awful anger which this innocent taffy facient can produce. As £ am probably the person meant by the ' Prof. Riley ' alluded to in their mellifluous effusion, I think it but just to the eminent entomologist of the agricultural department that I should relieve him of all responsi- bility for the ' recklessness ' which seems about to de- stroy his 'posthumous reputation as a scientist.' I am perhaps also directly responsible for the ' gross blunders ' of Gov. Porter, and so I hasten in propria persona, and not as Prof. Riley, to take the whole bur- den of the BEE JOURNAL'S wrath on my own feeble shoulders. Perhaps it may be well enough to give here the origin of the * parafline comb ' story, which has ap- peared, I believe, in almost every publication in the country. The original appeared in the Popular Science Monthly for June, 1881, in an article entitled ' Glucose 3 and Grape Sugar,' which 1 contributed to that number, and on page 254, appear the following words : * Bees eat Glucose with the greatest avidity ; or rather, they act as funnels by which the glucose is poured into the comb. For it is quite true that honey made by bees which have free access to glucose differs scarcely at all from the glucose Itself. But the quantity of honey which a bee will store away when fed on glucose is truly wonderful. This gluttony, however, rapidly undermines the apiarian constitution, and the bee rarely lives to enjoy the fruits of his apparent good fortune. In commercial honey which is entirely free from bee mediation, the comb is made of parafflue, and filled with pure glucose by appro- priate machinery.' This last clause, which, when written, was meant for a scientific pleasantry, came near throwing the whole bee world into epilepsy. It appears that persons who devote themselves to BEE JOURNALiS undergo a certain cere- bral inspiration which renders them incapable of seeing a joke. The only point which they can appreciate seems to be the sting of a bee. Gov. Porter, in his able and interesting address, said something similar to the above, and succeeded, as he intended, in raising a hearty laugh. I am appalled to think of the awful solemnity with which the Governor's remark would have been received had his audience been composed exclusively of editors of the BEE JOURIf ALi, instead of the intelligent yeomanry of Bartholomew County. Governor Porter, however, did say that an eminent apiculturist told him that he could only tell genuine from artificial honey by the after taste of formic acid which the genuine honey left in his throat. Perhaps in order to secure a ' posthumous reputation,' for which I care little, I might undertake here to show the BEE JOUKNAIj the great similarity between gen- uine honey and good glucose, but I fear it would be 'love's labor lost.' He is evidently suffering from an acute attack of gluco-phobia, and what I might say with the best intentions would only throw him into another spasm. When in < posthumous' times he shall send on 4 ' those vast expanses of flowerful clover to which all good BEE JOUBNALi editors go, and live off the ethereal ' milk and honey,' let us hope that he may never find his milk chalk-water, nor his honey glucose. Lafayette, Ind. H. W. WILEY, (Late Riley.) The rejoinder reminds us of an anecdote we heard many years ago, located in a rural district in Indiana. A well-to-do farmer lost a very fine filly from his pas- ture lot, and after several days' search found it snugly tied in the log barn of a distant neighbor of doubtful repute. The neighbor was indicted, tried, and found guil- ty of larceny ; when the Judge asked what he had to say, why sentence should not be passed, he put in a plea that the animal was only taken for a joke. The Judge inquired how far his barn was from the pasture lot, to which he replied, "About five miles." "Well," said the Judge, "that is carrying a joke too far; hard labor in the penitentiary for seven years." The writer above says he contributed to the Popular Science Monthly his "paraffine comb" story (lie) about a year ago, "which has appeared in almost every publication in the coun- try." The latter part of the article, however, was only meant for a scientific pleasantnj. Do scientific men indulge in pleasantries which will cast a gloom over thousands of honest producers throughout the country, and depreciate the value of their product by creating a prejudice against it? For nearly a year this scientific joker saw his fabrication published in nearly all the papers in the country, and reiterated from across the ocean, and yet he lacked the manhood to affirm it a joke until the "BEE JOUENAL man" counteracted its influence by showing the falsity and absurdity of the article. Whether it be true, as has been often intimated, that the story was instigated by 5 parties interested in the glucose traffic, in retaliation for the hostility of the bee men to their frauds, we can- not affirm ; but we do believe it originated with no hon- est intention. It is quite probable the article would never have attained the dignity of requiring a refutation had it appeared in a less accredited authority than the Popular Science Monthly. And considering the author's waggish propensities, can it be possible he furnished the Indiana Farmer the item attributing to Prof. Eiley the utterance of his own falsehoods? Evidently the Farmer placed too much confidence in the veracity of someone other than their own reporter. That paper in its issue of the 10th inst., alludes to the article above, and evi- dently as deeply deplores Mr. Wiley's tergiversations as do all others honestly inclined. Quoting after the "street gamins" it says, " Shoot the scientific pleas- antry." Could any possible good result to society at large from such reckless assertions, there might be some pal- liation ; but when the only justification which can be urged is that it was intended as a " scientific pleas- antry," it leaves the author but little to congratulate himself upon, even though he has succeeded in disgust- ing the world. H. W. Wiley (late Riley) has earned for himself a posthumous reputation, which will stand second only to that of his illustrious prototype, Ananias . (From American Bee-Journal, June 14, 1882, page STO.') 6 THE UNION AND THE WILEY LIE. Mr. G. M. Doolittle, of Borodino, N. Y., Vice-Presi- dent of the Bee Keepers' Union, sends us the following item, and his remarks, and the subsequent correspond- ence between himself and a new champion of Wiley's diabolical "Scientific Pleasantry." Mr. Doolittle says: "The following is the copy of an item which I wrote for the Rural Home, which ap- peared in the issue of that paper for May 5, 1888 : Here Is an Item whicb is going the rounds of the pa- pers. Mr. Root of Ohio, has a standing offer of $1,000 for a sample of manufactured honey in the comb. This should have a good effect on our industry, and will do much to counteract the story told by Prof. Wiley, of the United States Government fame, who told as a ' scientific pleasantry ' the story, that there was lots of honey on the market, selling as genuine comb honey, which was nothing more than manufactured stuff, the combs being made of paraffine, and the honey they contained being of glucose. From the latter, imaginary places sprang up in Chicago, New York and elsewhere, where comb honey was turned out by the ton, all working well until the past poor season, when honey went from a drug on the market, at the low price of 10 and 12 cents per pound, to a scarcity, scarcely obtainable at the high figure of from 20 to 25 cents. This effectually squelched the 7 Wiley lie, and caused the papers to notice the offer of Mr. Root, which was made several years ago. A Virginian takes exceptions to the above item, and wrote to the Rural Home as follows about it : AMHERST,, VA., May 4, 1888. EDITOR KURAIi HOME: — In May 5th Bural I notice under " Bee Notes," that Mr. Root, of Ohio, has a standing offer of $1,000 for a sample of man- ufactured honey in the comb, and the further state- ment is added by Mr. Doolittle, ' This should have a good effect on our industry, and will do much to counteract the story told by Prof. Wiley, of United States Government fame, etc' Then Mr. D. says, because honey was so high last year, ' the Wiley lie was squelched.' Now, Mr. Edi- tor, if you will open your columns to a fair, open and honest ventilation of the question, I will show who the little niggers are in this wood pile. I deny that any ' ' responsible ' ' man has ever made such an offer, and more, I dare any one to make one like it. One of the largest dealers in glucose and syrups, told me four years ago, that the apiarists of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York States were then buying large quantities of it. What for? Why, to feed the cows, of course. I will wager $1,000 that the Wiley lie is true, as to the adulter- ation of comb houey. Come on saints and sinners, "Barkis is willin." W. M.EVANS. This bold and bombastic letter was answered as fol- lows by Mr. Doolittle : BORODINO, N. Y., May 16, 1888. W. M. EVANS. — Dear Sir: Your letter to the Rural Home regarding the adulteration of honey, has been forwarded to me, and I have this day written to the Manager of the Bee Keepers' Union (a soci- ety to protect our interests), and to Mr. Root, who will doubtless give you a chance to prove your posi- 8 tlon, or lose the $1,000 you wager. The story told you four years ago by a glucose dealer, will do to tell, but may lack proof on investigation. Yours truly, G. M. DOOL.ITTL.E. Promptly Mr. A. I. Eoot, who is also a Vice-President of the National Bee-Keepers' Union, wrote to Mr. Evans, informing that doubter that A, I. Root was a real living man, and not an imaginary phantom ! that he made the ofeer of |1,000 for proof "that honey-comb is made, filled with glucose, and sealed up by a machine made for that purpose!" that he lived at Medina, Oho! that his re- sponsibilties in commercial circles could easily be ascer- tained from Bradstreet's agency, and enclosing his " business card! " Mr. Evans was nonplussed. He wrote to Prof. Wiley to help him out of the difficulty, and here is Prof. Wiley's reply: WASHINGTON, D.C., May 29, 1888. W. M. EVAKS. — Dear Sir: In regard to the mat- ter of artificial combs of which you wrote me under date of the 25th inst., permit me to make the fol- lowing statement : About eight years ago a very intimate friend of mine, an eminent chemist. Dr. E. J. Hallock, now deceased, told me that in Bos- ton, where he then resided, there had been con- structed a full outfit of machinery for the manu- facture of artificial combs. He stated further, that this comb was filled with glucose or artificial honey and sold for the pure article. On the basis of this testimony I made a statement in an article I wrote for the Popular Science Monthly to the effect that such artificial comb and honey were made. At the time, T repeated this statement more in the light of a pleasantry than as a commercial reality, for I did not believe that it was possible commer- cially to imitate the comb, although I did not doubt at the time that attempts had been made In this di- rection. It is, however, quite a common custom to make an artificial base for the comb, and bee keepers do not deny that this is done. Some persons, in a 9 malicious spirit, have constantly circulated this state- ment of mine for the purpose of injuring me pro- fessionally, and their failure to do so has only made their persecutions more hitter. Since Dr. Hallock is dead, I have no evidence ex- cept my own statement to offer in regard to the ac- curacy of the report. It is possible that Dr. Hallock may have been misinformed in regard to the matter, but he was perfectly honest in making the statement to me, and I was perfectly sincere in repeating it. Respectfully, H. W. WILEY, Chemist. In the foregoing letter Prof. Wiley makes this aston- ishing confession: "At the time, I repeated this state- ment more in the light of pleasantry than as a commer- cial reality, for / did not believe that it was possible commercially to imitate the comh." Therefore, he "knowingly, wilfully and maliciously" lied out of the whole cloth just to cause a sensation, and to injure an honest pursuit, for the paltry pay which the Popular Science Monthly gave him for the article ! ! ! It is astonishing that any man could make such a bare-faced confession without blushing for the infamy it exhibited! To lie for the filthy lucre it brings is bad enough, but when he permits that lie to be copied all over the world, and to be used to injure an honest business, without making the least endeavor to arrest its evil effect by an honest contradiction — the crime is doubled ! Without the least compunction of conscience he wrote "the statement" as to the manufacture of comb honey when he "did not believe that it was possible com- mercially to imitate the comb ! " Infamous ! ! 10 As is usual iu such cases, a liar will add to the number of his crimes to hide his meanness. So Wiley winds up his letter by asserting another falsehood, thus : " I was perfectly sincere in repeating it." Could a man be sincere in repeating what he kne^ to be a falsehood? He knew it to be impossible "to imitate the comb," and yet (over six years ago, and never tried to contra- dict it) he wrote this sentence : " In commercial honey, which is entirely free from bee mediation, the comb is made of paraffine, and filled with pure glucose by appropriate machinery." Now he wants us to believe that he "was perfectly sincere" in the assertion. The attempt to justify himself because bee-keepers use comb foundation (that is sheets of pure beeswax, with corrugations corresponding to the base of the cells) is as mean as it is futile. To take the pure beeswax from the bees, melt it, and thereby take out its dirt and impurities, and give it to the bees again for use at just the time they need it, is no excuse for lying about "making the combs of paraf- fine and filling them with glucose !" After receiving the above letter from Prof. Wiley, and getting no proof from it to sustain his bombast, Mr. Evans wrote as follows to Mr. Root: AMHERST, Va., May 31, 1888. MR. A. I. ROOT. — Dear Sir. — This letter settles the fact as to Wiley's statement, but it does not re- fate the fact that Doolittle, in his note to the Rural Home, so worded Ms reference to your $1,000 offer, H as to mislead the minds of the readers as to the real facts. If he had published the $1,000 reward, and the 4 or 5 lines following (or 2 lines), then no one would have been deceived. I made the statement two years ago in the Rural Home, that comb honey was being adulterated by feeding the bees mixtures, which is a fraud upon the public. Will you open the columns of Gleanings for a ventilation of this matter? And will you advocate the formation of anti-adulteration bands? I mean that the facts shall be known, and shall use the public press freely. An adulterated religion, which uses the essence of Hell (fermented wines), and calls it " the blood of Jesus," is one cause of the universal prevalence of adultery, and the adul- teration of most everything we eat, drink, wear and use ; and I think it is about time this hell-disease was crushed, but it cannot be done by " wind religion," but only by work for God and humanity. More Golden Rule lived, and less praying and preaching will do it. Prayer in action is the kind needed now — wind is too cheap ! W. M. EVANS. The last paragraph shows that Mr. Evans is a "crank" of the worst type. He threatened and blustered. He asserted most posi- tively that there was no such person as A. I. Eoot ! that no responsible man ever made an offer of $1,000 for a sample of manufactured honey in comb ! and dared any one to make such an offer! He also would "wager |1,000 that the Wiley lie is true!!" and tauntingly added, "Come on, saints and sinners, Barkis is willin'." It shows that it was all bombast and bluff, for as soon as Mr. Doolittle referred the matter to the Bee Keeper's Union, he wrote to Prof. Wiley, begging for even some slight proof of that old lie! When confronted by our co-laborer, Mr. A. I. Root, who is also Vice-President of the National Bee Keepers' 12 Union — who also assured him of his real existence! and proved that he was no imaginwry individual, or a finan- cially worthless being— then the nohle patriot tries to back down ; but to show some slight degree of fighting qualities, he proposes to "fight a wooden man, in the shape of adulterated honey !" He blamed Mr. Doolittle for not doing the very thing that he did do — and in every way shows that he was frustrated — beaten at every turn — and his vaunting is trailed in the dirt before his very eyes ! Such insolent braggarts must be taught to make sure of their proofs before vauntingly parading them in the face of the intelligent public. The National Bee Keepers' Union exists to teach the impudent, in a fear- less manner, that Truth shall triumph, even though such a "Goliath" shall defiantly and tauntingly say: "Come on, saints and sinners, Barkis is willin'." Audacity cannot win, especially when the National Bee Keepers' Union lifts up a standard, and defends the pursuit. Lawyers, Doctors and Ministers have been caught repeating the diabolical Wiley lie, and even the un- known and unheard-of Virginian essays to repeat it! But all have come to grief before the Union's trium- phant banner of truth ! (From The Americaa Bee Journal, June 13tb, 1888, page 388.) 13 THE SCIENTIFIC PLEASANTRY. Referring to our comments on his letter published on page 388, Prof. H. W. Wiley has sent us the follow- ing apologetic and explanatory, though ill-tempered, reply : Dear Sir: — Often, men who Indulge in language more becoming a fish-market than the columns of a reputable journal, have 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 JOURNALi of June 13. You may excite the prejudices of unsuspecting readers when you call me a " wilful liar,'' and so dis- tinguished 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 sci- entist of the highest promise, viihose death too early deprived chemistry of one of its most promising students. We used STEONG language because the Professor had taken no notice of the soft and mild words which we had used previously. Our object was to cause him to forsake his dignified silence, and either 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 delicate society. The Professor continues : 14 In regard to the matter in question, viz., the fabrication of artificial combs, 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. Bvans, 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 com- mercially 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 Popular Science Monthly such a limitation as mentioned above. My statement in the Popular Science Monthly was not a " wilful lie," but rested on authority as relia- ble as could be had The fact that I did not believe it to be commercially practicable had nothing what- ever to do with the veracity of the statement. If you are at all disposed to be just and honorable yourself (which your language would lead me to doubt), you will be able to see the mistake into which you have fallen. When "comb foundation" was first introduced it was inappropriately called artificial comb by some, 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 1-2 inch deep for the bees to fill with honey, but that is quite another thing from the charge made in the "scientific pleasantry!" That article was said to be "entirely free from bee-mediation —the comb is made of paraflfine, and filled with glucose, by appropriate machinery !" The Professor cannot get away on such a flimsy excuse as that! We will adopt the language of the astute Professor himself : "If you are at all disposed to be just and honorable (which your language would lead me to doubt), you will be able to 16 see the mistake into which you have fallen." If the Pro- fessor's prescription is good for anything, that dose ought to relieve him! The Professor now tries a new dodge in this manner : • You may think you deceive the public in your ill- advised and I -fear ill-meaning' endeavors to cover up the enormous adulteration of honey which is now practiced. I have labored earnestly, in conjunction with others, to determine the nature of the adultera- tion in honey, and the best methods of detecting it, and no amount of buncombe billingsgate can drive me from the work of securing to the honest bee- grower an honest market. Your statement that, "It has no foundation except in the Wiley lie, when any one says that comb honey is adulterated," 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-knowu and incontrovertibly established, for him to contradict that the AMERICAN BEE JOUE- NAL has valiantly fought the adulteration of honey for many years. For him now to attempt to create an im- pression that he is "securing to the honest bee-grower an honest market," and that the BEE JOURNAL is defending adulteration is simply monstrous! Such an assertion "betrays either a pitiable ignorance or a repre- hensible maliciousness !" The Professor must here take another dose of his own medicine, after which we will quote from his letter the following paragraphs: I have the honor to send you a reprint of an article in the American Apiculturist, containing an analysis of three samples of " Choice Comb Honey," viz. : 2, 3 and 4, which consisted of almost pure starch glucose. How this glucose got into the comb I will leave you to surmise. There were brave men before Agamemnon, and long before the days of Wiley, the honey of our country was famous for 16 its adulterations. Hehner, a distinguished English analyst, in Vol. IV. of the Analyst says : " Com syrup is actually most frequently found in honeys imported from America." "Of nine American samples, seven were adulterated." "In August, 1884, one Campbell was arraigned before the police court of Glasgow for selling 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 to be genuine American honey, and he believed it to be so. The defendant was convicted." Commenting on these instances, I said in an ad- dress to the Indiana bee keepers, Jan. 22nd, 1885 : " Every 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 American honey is a thing of the past ! ' " The reprint article which the Professor sent includes five tables, the total unreliability of which is shown by the fact that samples of honey Nos. 15, 16 and 17, were obtained from Mr. C. F. Muth, of Cincinnati — a man known by every bee keeper of prominence to be the essence of honor and honesty, and who has never soiled his reputation by adulterating honey or anything else! and yet these three samples are said by Prof. Wiley to be "honey apparently adulterated mth inverted su- crose/" Two other samples obtained from Mr. Muth are classed as "apparently genuine." Prof. Wiley had the assurance to send to Mr. Muth 17 for more samples to analyze. This was indignantly re- fused — ^in these words : "We know what we deal in, and handle only straight goods — and want nothing more to do with your 'apparently pure.' " The component parts of honey from different soils/ vary so much that but few (if any) can positively deter- mine, even by analysis, the purity thereof. Some can- died honey, which we know to he pure, was analyzed, a short time ago, and pronounced adulterated! As to the Scottish honey dealer's trial, the Professor should know that it was extracted honey, and not comb lioney, 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 advisable for the Professor to read the AMERICAN 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 frantic at- tempts you are making to conceal the gravity of the fraud which Is practiced on the honey-growers of this country by adulteration. If you really believe there is no adulteration, you are ignorant; if not Ignorant, your motive is easily understood. Respectfully, H. W. WILEY. We are not "ignorant" of the fact that extracted honey was quite generally adulterated when it brought higher prices, but now its price is so low that it will not pay to adulterate it, and it is in consequence hardly ever done ! Persons will not adulterate 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!! To bring up that ghost now, as the Professor has done, is but to fight a dead issue. 18 A BRIEF REVIEW OF SEVEN YEARS. Now, in 1888, Prof. Wiley wants to figure as the friend of "the honest bee-grower," and the enemy of the adulterator — as the defender of "an honest market" for honey, and as a "detective" to pursue the sophisticator of honey. But in 1881, in an address before the Farmers' Insti- tute at Crawfordsville, Indiana, when advising farmers to grow corn to be made into glucose, he is credited in the Indiana Farmer with saying that "really better honey can be made from glucose than the genuine ar- ticle itself ! !" In June of the same year he wrote over his own signature to the Indiana Farmer^ these char- acteristic sentences, which were copied into the BEE JOUENAL, then, on page 370 : '* Glucose ** has tlie same efiect on the BEE JOUBNAIL man that a red rag has on an infuriated bnll, and it is decidedly amusing to see the awful anger which this INNOCENT taffy facient can produce. In commercial honey, which is entirely free from bee-mediation, the comb is made of parafflne and filled with pare glucose by appropriate machinery. This last clause, which, when written, was meant for a scientific pleas- antry, came near throwing the whole bee-world into epilepsy. It appears that persons who devote themselves to BEE JOURNALS undergo a certain cerebral inspiration which renders them incapable of seeing a joke. The only point they can appreciate seems to be the sting of a bee. QoT. Porter, in his able and interesting address, said something similar to the above, and succeeded, as he intended, in raising a hearty laugh. I ani appalled to think of the awful solemnity with which the Gov- ernor's remark would have been received had his audience been composed exclusively of the editors of the BEE JOURNAIj, instead of the intelligent yeomanry of Bartholomew county. 19 Ferhspg, In order to secure » " poBthumous repntatlon," for which I care little, I might undertake here to show the BEE JOURNAL the great similarity between genuine honey and good glucose, but I fear it would be "love's labor lost." He is evidently snaering from an acute attack of gluco-phobia, and what I might say with the best intentions would only throw him into another spasm. Our remarks after publishing these selections, seven years ago, are as appropriate to-day as then, for we have been on the same side all the time, while Wiley has been flopping hither and thither, as the years have come and gone. We then said : Could any possible good result to society at large from sueh reckless assertions, there might be some palliation; but when the only jnstifleation which can be urged is, that it was intended as a " scientific pleasantry," it leaves the author but little to congratulate himself upon, even though he has succeeded in dignsting the world. Not a pound of "paraffine comb, filled with glucose and sealed by machinery" (in imitation to honey) can be found on the market, even though three years of failure of the honey-crop offer the greatest inducement for its appearance, and honey in the comb brings high prices! This fact proves that it does not exist! (From the American -Bee Journal, June 85, 1888, page 484.) 20 We, your committee, to whom was referred the reso- lution on adulterated comb honey, beg leave to report as follows : In view of the Oft-repeated statement in the public press that comb honey is made, filled and capped over by machinery, Resolved, That the National Bee-Keepers' Associa- tion will forfeit the sum of |1,000 to any party or par- ties who will furnish proof beyond successful contra- diction that said statement is true, and produce as part of such evidence two pounds or more of such comb honey that has been manufactured without the use of bees in any way, with sufficient skill to deceive ordinary honey experts. E. T. Abbott^ Ellis E. Preslee^ E. Keetohmek^ M. A. Gill. (From the report of the convention of the National Bee-Keepers' As- sociation held on the Exposition grounds in St. Louis, Mo,, in 1904, p, 87.) 21 A CRITICISM JN 1904 ON THE "HONEY LIE." Then there is the widespread falsehood of the whole- sale adulteration of honey produced by feeding bees glucose and the still worse frau|d of cheating the bees entirely and manufacturing honey, comb and all. All bee-keepers know how absurd these statements are and how utterly impossible it would be to make them were the authors of the statement familiar with the manu- facure of genuine honey. But one commission after another contributes an interesting article upon this subject to his local press and it travels from ocean to ocean. But while a food commissioner who is not ex- pected to be a food scientist may make a blunder of this kind, occasionally, especially as it has passed current for so many years, it is less excusable in the chemist, and to a chemist must be attributed the first widespread publicity of the lie. It was as long ago as 1881 that an article appeared in the Popular Science Monthly by the now renowned chief chemist of the United States Department of Agricul- ture, from which I quote the last paragraph: "In commercial honey which is entirely free from bee med- iation the comb is made from paraffine and filled with pure glucose by appropriate machinery." Later when the paragraph had attained the most wide- spread publicity and the bee-keeper questioned his right to make the statements — the author explained that they were meant for a scientific pleasantry and even accused 22 the bee-keeper of being dull in comprehension in not quickly seeing the joke. The bee-keeper could not question the spirit or mood in which the article was written, but held that it was a sad subject to joke upon, and it is probably a source of regret to the chemist that his humor was not dis- covered by the hundreds of papers which up to this very day reiterate it. But the statement was made and its trail of trade damage is still in its wake. What is the cause of these unwise statements? First, perhaps desire for publicity. Second, to alarm the public to a degree of food adulteration. Third, thor- ough ignorance. Sometimes it seems that a little exaggeration of the adulteration of food is not an unmixed evil, as the public will awake to the importance of protecting themselves, yet, truth is the better guide, and especially where falsehood injures large industries as it has in honey, candy, flour and other food stuffs. (Extract from address by Professor Eaton on Food Frauds and Food Officials at the convention of the National Bee-Keepers' Association, held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1904, p. 103 of Journal.) 23