For the benefit of some who do not as yet understand all my argument against the use of separators I wish to add, that I am well aware that the system of sections within frames hung in a super, is entirely impracticable without the use of separators. I know too that, as Messrs. Greiner Bros. remark, bees take more kindly to wood than to tin or glass, and there is just where the trouble comes, as they sometimes kindly attach the sides of the combs to them. Some seasons, under peculiar circumstances, the loss of honey by the use of separators might, as Greiner Bros. say, be very slight, but in many seasons they will be found to be a serious detriment to the amount of surplus obtained. But why not use a system that does not need them, and is much handier than the super system besides?

I supposed that the younger bee-keepers, who keep posted, knew that many old producers on a more extensive scale never used separators at all, and of that class who did many others are laying them aside. Bees do finish up their combs full better with separators, because as the season draws to a close they are less inclined to start another comb in one of those little compartments, and as long as there is honey coming in they finish with it to keep from perfect idleness. I think the unfinished combs are just so much extra. If it is “strange” that I should declare against the use of all separators, while still many prominent bee-keepers use them, how dare you, Messrs. G., declare against tin, compared with wood, when you know that tin is the popular material? Galileo said, “The world is round;” all others said, “It is flat,” and there being more of the “flats” than Galileos, these “flats” put their greatest scientist behind the prison bars.

Before I close, I wish to call the attention of the readers of this paper to the able article of A. B. Weed, on “Queen and Supply Trade,” in the Bee Journal of March 23d. I think all bee-keepers, whether supply-dealers or producers strictly, if posted upon the points therein taken, will say, “Thanks to Mr. Weed.”

Dowagiac, Mich., March 26, 1881.

For the American Bee Journal.

Pure Liquid Honey in Glass Jars.
CHAS. F. MUTH.

The above subject is one which has provoked considerable comment, and it appears we are not quite done with it yet. I dare say that there is not a dealer of any note in Cincinnati, by this time, who imagines that my jar honey is anything but pure honey, or who suspects any honey when it comes from my store; and I am just as positive in the statement that there is not a dealer in Cincinnati, having extracted honey from New York or Chicago in store, who does not believe it to be glucosed. There is hardly anybody in our community who suspects the purity of the honey when my label is on the jar. Jar-honey, in general, is not mistrusted any more in our city, unless the jar contains besides the liquid, also a piece of comb honey. Such is the case in Cincinnati, to all appearances, and I am willing to be corrected if wrong.

The subjoined letter from a party in New York, and my answer to them, show an interesting difference in the state of the market for extracted honey in our city and New York, the home of Mr. W. M. Hoge, Wm. Hogue or John Long. To avoid misunderstanding, I may state that Hoge, Hogue or Long, while in New York, was bottling honey for the firm of Thurber & Co. In explanation of the letters following, I may state that the editor of the Cincinnati Grocer had been recommending my honey to Messrs. Guernsey & Co., N. Y., who opened correspondence with me, and to me he had recommended them as perhaps the best party to introduce my honey in the New York market. The result was that I sent them 1 gross of 1 lb. jars and 1 gross of ½ lb. tumblers, at cost, on 60 days’ time. The honey commenced granulating in the course of a month or more. This fact, and the general mistrust to extracted honey in New York must be taken into consideration to do the following correspondence justice:

New York, March 17, 1881.

Mr. C. F. Muth—Dear Sir: Enclosed please find bill of lading for the honey sent us. We find it totally impossible to sell the goods, as parties here are afraid of glucose, etc. We waited for parties to decide about them, and they concluded not to take them. We are sorry, but such is the case. We have retained one box of each, bottles and tumblers, to pay us for the freight paid on goods here. Yours very respectfully,

Guernsey & Co.