Just when the movement was gaining public support, a most unfortunate incident occurred. The man who was later to become the recognized leader of the pure food forces and to concentrate the combined efforts in such a manner as to procure the enactment of the desired legislation, gave out some ill-advised publicity. Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, who, as chemist of the United States Department of Agriculture, was to arouse the entire country to the dangers of food adulteration, wrote as follows in the Popular Science Monthly, June, 1881:

In commercial honey, which is entirely free from bee mediation, the comb is made of paraffin, and filled with pure glucose by appropriate machinery.

This at once destroyed public confidence in comb honey as well as extracted, since the statement was very generally circulated in the press of the entire country for a period of several years. There was a storm of protest on the part of the beekeepers and a demand for proof that such manufacture had ever been done successfully.

Wiley, of course, was interested in arousing public sentiment to the point of obtaining legal restrictions which would make adulteration impossible. He did not realize the influence that such a statement would have on the legitimate honey dealer by destroying public confidence in the one form of honey which it was impossible to imitate. The high position which he occupied as a chemist gave authority to his statement, and since it was known generally that liquid honey was commonly adulterated, the public was very willing to believe that the same was true of honey in the comb.

The bee magazines were filled with stinging denouncements of Wiley, who was accused of deliberate and malicious falsehood, and no doubt he felt very keenly the criticism of the group who had started the movement which he was trying so hard to foster. Later he attempted to justify his position by explanations, which served only to prove that he had been careless in his statements.

In the Canadian Bee Journal, July 18, 1888, he wrote that his original statement had been made on authority of Dr. E. J. Hal-lock, editor of the Boston Journal of Chemistry; that in Boston where he resided a full outfit of machinery had been made to manufacture comb from paraffin and fill it with glucose. He said that neither he nor the doctor believed that such could be made a commercial success, and in another letter that his statement had been made as a scientific pleasantry.

This statement did not help the doctor's position with the beekeepers, and it was followed by even more bitter comment in the magazines. At this distance, it looks as though Wiley made the statement in the heat of passion while making an attack on the general practice of adulteration, with little thought of the ultimate consequence. The incident mentioned by Hallock served to provide additional ammunition for the fight, and he proceeded to make use of it.

As already stated, it was extremely unfortunate, since it alienated the friendship of a large number of beekeepers, including Charles Dadant, who had started the movement to bring about federal legislation against adulteration. These men distrusted Wiley and refused to work with him and thus ham pered the movement and, quite possibly, delayed the final favorable outcome. Beekeepers could only think of what they called "the Wiley lie" when any attempt was made to combine forces with the famous chemist.

The attention of the beekeepers was centered on an effort to remove suspicion from comb honey. A. I. Root offered $1,000 to anyone who could prove that comb honey had ever been successfully imitated, and the leaders of the industry were largely occupied in writing to editors of papers and magazines, who had published Wiley's statement, to obtain retraction.

These attempts were not very successful and usually resulted in making a bad matter worse. In 1888 G. M. Doolittle, then vice-president of the Bee-Keeper's Union, wrote to the Rural Home commenting on the statement and calling attention to Root's offer of $1,000 for proof of manufactured comb honey. A Virginian named W. M. Evans answered the article, stating that no responsible man had made such an offer and daring anyone to make it. The reply was called to Root's attention, and he at once wrote Evans and demanded that he retract his statement or claim the reward. Evans then appealed to Wiley for assistance and, in reply, Wiley wrote him along the same lines as published in the Canadian Bee Journal. All this correspondence was published in the American Bee Journal of June 13, 1888.

Due to the agitation for legislation against adulteration, one paper or another published the original Wiley statement at frequent intervals for many years, and the beekeepers were kept in a state of feverish excitement trying to overcome the effects of such publicity.

In the Chicago Record-Herald, March 15, 1908, Marion Har-land, a widely-known writer, spoke of honeycomb "made by the bees themselves instead of the artificial combs of paraffin now manufactured. " That she was misled by the quotations from Wiley so widely published, is indicated by the fact that when a protest reached her, she very courteously offered a correction in the March 22 issue.

In Gleanings for May 1, 1913, appeared a quotation from Ida M. Tarbel, whose syndicated article stated, "they even manufacture honeycomb and fill it with glucose. " This probably brought a very general protest from beekeepers. Among those who wrote to Miss Tarbell was this author. In her reply, instead of admitting her mistake, she criticized him for objecting to an expose of a guilty practice. So sure was she that such practice existed that she indicated her intention to claim the reward, when it was called to her attention. Thus, after thirty years, an ill-advised statement continued to be accepted and passed on by writers with wide opportunity for reaching the public.