406 
THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACY. 
the duties of a pharmaceutical chemist was liable to a penalty of £20, or, in 
default, to six months* imprisonment. 
Mr. Shillinglaw — In Victoria both fine and imprisonment can be imposed. 
There is a case in point from Sandhurst. 
Mr. Pond quoted from the New Zealand Act, Clause 25, as follows : — 
“ From and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful 
for any person not duly registered as a pharmaceutical chemist, according 
to the provisions of this Act, assuming or using the title of pharmaceutical 
chemist, pharmaceutist, chemist and druggist, dispensing chemist, or other words 
of similar import, in any part of New Zealand, or assuming or exhibiting any 
name, title, or sign implying that he is registered under this Act, or that he 
is a member of the said society ; and if any person, not being duly registered 
under this Act, shall assume or use the title of pharmaceutical chemist . . . 
shall be liable to a penalty of five pounds.** It was tantamount to a penalty of 
£5 a day, i.e., every offence, and it was very severe punishment. 
Mr. Huntsman said that in the Amended Act for New Zealand there was 
a clause which it was very desirable to have introduced into the Acts of the 
various colonies. [It was briefly, “ That every open shop must be under the 
management of a registered pharmaceutical chemist.’* Many chemists had branch 
shops, and it was easy for them to get unqualified men and place them in 
charge at a small salary. The clause would have the effect of protecting the 
public, and offering a fair chance to the rising pharmacist. 
Mr. Pond — There is not much chance of the amendment coming on this 
session. 
Mr. Huntsman urged its insertion into the Victorian Act. It was a point 
bearing on the £ s. d. In the Tasmanian Act there was a clause of very similar 
purport providing for the imposition of a fine of £50 for vending medicines or drugs 
without having obtained a license from Parliament or two members of the Court. 
Another clause in the same Act was also worth their attention, viz.: — “No person 
. . . . shall incur any penalty by selling medicines or drugs at any place 
distant more than two miles from place of business of any person who has a 
license to vend medicines, provided such medicines or drugs shall be sold in 
unopened packages made up by and bearing the label of some person who has 
obtained such license, but not otherwise.” That clause was worth passing around 
the table, and it spoke for itself. According to Clause 9 of the Victorian Act, 
‘ the Board may make, alter, or rescind regulations foT the purpose of carrying 
this Act into effect. Such regulations shall have been confirmed by the Governor- 
in-Council, and published in the Government Gazette .’* He failed to see anything 
in the New Zealand Act to that effect. 
Mr. Pond said, unfortunately, there was too much. There was a difficulty 
connected with Section 11. New Zealand was the most scattered of the colonies. 
There was nothing in the clause to guide them in the calling of “ the special 
meeting,” and in consequence of this the matter had been placed in the hands 
of their solicitors, who were unable to help them. It was then thought wise 
to abandon the idea of holding a meeting. He was subsequently informed that 
it would have been better to have gone on with it. Several members of Parlia- 
ment had expressed a willingness to bring it forward, and there was no doubt 
but they would get the necessary power of passing the regulations when it did 
come on. 
Mr. Huntsman — That is the Amended Act ? 
Mr. Pond — Yes, to enable us to frame our regulations. 
Mr. Huntsman — Before regulations are made the majority of the pharma- 
ceutical chemists must be enrolled. 
