VoL. i. No. 1. 
THE CHEMIST AND DKUGGIST OF AUSTEALASIA. 
3 
society from the future j)ublication of 2'he Australasian Chemist 
and Druggist , and to take over all binding contracts entered 
into up to that date. He required that an official announce- 
ment should be made of the amalgamation of the journal, and 
that the society should transfer absolutely their right, title, 
and interest, to The Australasian Chemist and Druggist, as 
well as all contracts for advertisements, and subscriptions, and 
a correct register of its members to whom llie Australasian 
Chemist and Druggist had been supplied. He further required 
the withdrawal of the proposed Australasian Journal of 
Pharmacy, and undertook to repay all moneys the society were 
actually out of pocket in connection therewith. Mr. INIorgan 
generously stipulated that reports of all proceedings of the 
society furnished to him by it should be published in the 
amalgamated journal. 
This proiDOsal was read by Mr. J. V. Morgan at the meeting 
of the Council, and discussed by it after Mr. Morgan had 
retired, the unanimous opinion of the Council being that the 
offer be declined. Of this Mr. Morgan was informed, and, at 
the same time, asked if he would receive a proposal on the 
subject from the Council. Expressing his willingness to do 
so, its proposal was submitted to him, and by him declined. 
We trust we have placed the matter fairly before our readers, 
and that we may receive that supi:)ort from the members of 
the society and the pharmacists of Australasia generally, as 
our- new journal shall deserve. We would further point out 
that it is not projected as a commercial speculation, but will 
be devoted to the interests of Australasian pharmacists and 
pharmaceutical knowledge, and that the principal portion of 
the work in connection with it is of an honorary nature. 
“THE CHEMIST AND DEUGGIST” IN AUSTEAL- 
ASIA. 
(From our 'point of i>ieic.) 
Before 1877 our Journal had been well known and widely cir- 
culated for very many years. We had a large number of sub 
scribers, whose subscriptions -were collected for us in Australia 
by Messrs Felton, Grimwade and Co., and in New Zealand by 
Messrs Kemi^thorne, Prosser and Co. We attached great im- 
portance to our colonial circulation, and had agents in all 
parts of the British possessions. 
Consequently an Australasian circulation was no new 
thing to us w’hen the Pharmaceutical Society of Victoria asked 
us in 1877 to contract for the supply of our journal to all its 
members. The arrangement made involved us in a heavy ex- 
penditure, the amount charged barely covering the cost of 
freight, postage, &c., the whole of the journals and the annual 
diary being virtually presented to the society. Our object as 
stated at the time was to secure as nearly as possible a uni- 
versal circulation in these colonies, and the diaries were an 
additional gift included in order to keep faith -with our adver- 
tisers. 
The Pharmaceutical Society of New South Wales. 
We are charged with injuring the Pharmaceutical Society 
of Victoria by the arrangement we made with the sister 
society in New South Wales, and it is alleged that our Mr. 0. 
V. Morgan when he visited Australia in 1881 secretly made the 
arrangement with the latter before he made his presence known 
to the former. If the Pharmaceutical Society had been able, 
as it hoped, to extend its influence through all the colonies, 
we should have been glad to leave our interests entirely in its 
hands. But when we found that the projected arrangements 
with New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, and 
New Zealand had failed, we could not abandon our pro- 
gramme as stated above. In our first letter to the society we 
had asked for the addresses of the secretaries of similar bodies 
in the other colonies, and after three years interval w^e pro- 
posed to, and made with the Pharmaceutical Society of New 
South Wales a somewhat similar arrangement. It was con- 
cluded by letter long before Mr 0. V. Morgan visited New- 
South Wales. At that time the number of copies taken regu- 
larly by the Victorian Society would barely supply half the 
chemists on the Victorian register alone, leaving the other 
colonies out of the question. 
The Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand. 
Mr O. V. Morgan, now M.P. for Battersea, visited Australia 
in 1881, the Exhibition year. VTiile w-aiting for the New 
Zealand steamer he spent a day or tw'o in Melbourne, reserving 
all business till his return. In New Zealand he made preli- 
minary arrangements with the Pharmaceutical Society for the 
supply of our journal to its members, but this w-as not com- 
pleted till after his interviews w-i^h the Secretary of the Phar- 
maceutical Society of Victoria. 
The First Misunderstanding. 
On July 15, 1881, a letter w-as addressed to us by the 
Honorary Secretary to the Pharmaceutical Society of Victoria, 
stating that he regarded the arrangement made by our repre- 
sentative ■with the Pharmaceutical Society of New South 
Wales (not a word about New Zealand) “as a breach of the 
agreement with the Society” ; and on July 4 he gave notice to 
terminate the agreement on January 1st, 1882. It is note- 
worthy that the charge of bad faith is now abandoned. And 
on August 29, after Mr 0. V. Morgan had had interviews wuth 
the various members of the council, the letter terminating the 
agreement w-as withdrawn, and the period of notice was ex- 
tended. 
The Titles and Copyrights. 
On March 20, 1878, the honorary secretary w-rote informing 
us that he had registered the title of the Australasian Supple- 
ment under the. New-spaper Act. The actual date of registra- 
tion is May 17, 1878, and not until November last did we 
learn that the title registered was “ The Chemist and Druggist,'^ 
the title which is, and had been at that time, for nearly twenty 
years’ our property, well-know-n to be such by all persons in- 
terested throughout all the British possessions ; registered and 
protected wherever the British flag flies by every means the 
law provides. From the statement of the Society it ■would be 
inferred that the title of the “Australasian Supplement” ■was 
altered immediately after Mr 0. Vaughan Morgan’s visit. But 
it was not till September, 1884, that it was registered. 
It had been assumed some months earlier. No notice of 
the change ever reached our office, and the second mis- 
understanding first called our attention to it. We thereupon 
wrote on May 29, 1884, “we cannot consent to your calling 
“ your supplement ‘ The Australasian Chemist and Druggist.’ 
“ You formerly described the publication as ‘ The Chemist and 
“ Druggist with Australasian Supplement,’ and you printed 
‘ ‘ above the title ‘ supplement only.’ This was not exactly what 
‘ ‘ was proposed by you in the contract, but was in no sense ob- 
“ jectionable. Your new title we regard as directly infringing 
“ our property.” The Council rejAied July 10, 1884, that they 
considered our remarks uncalled for, the title had been altered 
fifteen months before, and we had not thought it necessary to 
comment on it earlier. 
The Second Misunderstanding. 
During May, 1884, we ■were several times asked by our ad- 
vertisers whether their advertisements in our journal reached 
all Australasian subscribers. We confidently asserted that 
such was the case. But we soon learned that this idea had 
been conveyed to them by Mr Forrest, who was canvassing on 
behalf of the “ Australasian Supplement.” We had interviews 
with him, and he gave us information w-ith all frankness. 
But what he told us so seriously impugned our commercial 
honesty and reputation that in self-defence we threatened him 
with an injunction unless he desisted from canvassing on the 
same lines. He gave us the January part of the publication of 
the Victorian Society, containing the colonial literary 
matter, the literary matter from the November issue of “ The 
Chemist and Druggist” the colonial advertisements, and none 
of our advertisements. He had been instructed by the Council 
to say that this was the style in w-hich the publication was then 
sent out, and he was furnished with a letter from Mr Shilling- 
law “not to be mentioned or produced to English firms unless 
necessary,” stating that “ the English advertisements would 
not in future be bound up with the colonial part.” 
We never contended nor dreamt that a canvass in London 
for advertisements for “The Australasian Chemist and 
Druggist” was-an infringement of our rights ; but we objected 
most strongly to the implied accusation of bad faith on our 
part, which was com*eyed by the method of the canvass, to 
some of our advertisers who spoke to us, and we know not to 
how many more who never mentioned it. 
The new reading of the contract involved in these transac- 
tions needed explanation. This was apparently recognised 
by the honorary secretary to the society. For in reply to a 
telegram, ‘ ‘ Adhere contract, seen Forrest, understand advertise- 
ments omitted,” he wrote on June 2: — “Before giving the 
“ letter to Mr. Forrest, I looked carefully over the correspon- 
“ dence to see if by so doing we were committing any breach of 
“ our agreement ■with you, and I find there is not one word in 
“ the whole correspondence about circulating your advertise- 
“ ments, and there would have been no breach of faith if we had 
“ given up sending them out at all, but this we have not done. 
