28 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA.. 
Feb. 1, 1887. 
Equitable Stores. They propose, on the other hand, unless 
their feeling of irritation is allayed, to extend their business 
in that direction, and compete not only for Melbourne but 
also for the whole of Victoria. There is a shop adjacent to 
the store which happens to be the property of the Company ; 
this is to be fitted up as a pharmacy and let to a registered 
chemist or chemists. The Company will find capital at 
something over 10 per cent, interest secured on the stock, 
<&c., and will fix the terms at which the dispensing and 
retail business is to be conducted — namely, about 25 per cent, 
below ordinary retail prices. The chemist’s income will 
depend on the profits he can make over and above the interest 
charged by the Stores for capital. Good judges are doubtful 
where the profits will come in. The step proj^osed will involve 
an expense for rental of at least £300 to £400 annually ; when 
working expenses and interest on capital are added one can- 
not be quite certain how the dispenser is to “ make wages.” 
Possibly it will be found that there is no rush of applicants 
for the new post. We trust there may not be. If any 
qualified chemist is appointed he must expect the illwill of all 
his fellow-craftsmen. 
A CHEMISTS’ DEFENCE FUND. 
A circular, which is copied under our Victorian news, has 
been distributed to all registered chemists in Victoria. The 
scheme has been under discussion for some months in the 
Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australasia, and at 
its last meeting the circular in question was submitted and 
approved. But it is sent out by the Pharmacy Board, wdiich 
seems to some extent an irregularity. 
The circular states that, although over 300 prosecutions 
for the sale of prohibited articles have been instituted by the 
Board, the result has almost always been a pecuniary loss, as the 
fines and costs have not paid the expenses of prosecution. The 
Government considering that the Pharmacy Act is for the 
protection of chemists, as much as of the public, declines to 
provide funds for the prosecution of these illegal dealers 
beyond the £300 or £400 already allotted to the expenses of 
the Board. “Under these circumstances the ‘Board’ have 
had under consideration the best means of coping with the 
difficulty.” Whatever the Board may have done, it is certain 
that the discussion has been in the Council. 
The way out of the difficulty is that chemists should con- 
tribute a small annual amount for the purpose of indemnifying 
the Board against loss in carrying out prosecutions. 
The contention of the circular is perfectly just. The Board 
cannot expect to get sufficient costs awarded to it to cover the 
expense of prosecutions in all parts of the colony. If chemists 
desire these prosecutions to be carried on they must be pre- 
pared to pay for them, and the subscription of 10s. per annum, 
as suggested, is not excessive. 
At the same time it is our duty to point out that in England 
it has been found advantageous to place the management of 
the defence funds under the control of an association distinct 
from the educational and certificate- granting body. Of course 
whether the Pharmacy Board or the Council of the Pharma- 
ceutical Society administers the fund in Victoria, it will still 
be under the control of the body of chemists, as the members of 
both are elected. But it is still for the consideration of 
chemists if they are sufficiently satisfied with the past 
administration of the Pharmacy Act to be prepared to place 
further funds in the hands of the present managers, or if they 
prefer a fresh policy. 
POISON LEGISLATION IN QUEENSLAND. 
Queensland enjoys the distinction of being the only colony 
in which there is no restriction on the sale of poisons. 
It is true that in some of the other colonies the law is very 
defective, but, nevertheless, there is a law. Tasmania, the last 
to obtain legislation on this matter, has secured a very good 
act, and in South Australia there is a desire to move for an 
amendment of their act, which, dating from 1862, six years 
before any act existed in Great Britain, has not the advantage 
of the later experience embodied in more recent acts. 
Queensland has not allowed the subject to sleep. In 1884 
the Hon. P. Maepherson introduced a bill for regulating the 
sale and use of poisons. It was never much discussed, was 
postponed two or three times, and died a natural death about 
six weeks after it was introduced. 
The i^rovisions of the bill are very similar to those of the 
acts in force in the other colonies. On pages 247 and 248 of 
our journal for November last we jndnted the text of the Tas- 
manian bill, and those who are sufficiently interested in the 
matter to look at those pages will gather the complete text of 
the Queensland Bill with hardly a verbal alteration by reading 
the sections of the Tasmanian bill specified below. 
The Queensland bill is copied from that of New South Wales, 
and some of the provisions relating to the establishment of a 
Pharmacy Board in that colony have crept into the draft in 
section 14, where the Governor-in-Council is emi^owered to 
make regulations “ for the registration of persons claiming to be 
registered as chemists and druggists (in the event of sufficient 
regulations in that behalf not being made by the said board).” 
The schedule is copied from the New South Wales Act and 
the provision of the Act, adopted also in Tasmania, forbidding 
the sale of vermin killers except to householders, ajjpears as 
section 4. This provision, in view of the great number of 
deaths from poisoning by “ rough on rats,” seems judicious, if 
it is impossible to abolish the provision excluding patent and 
proprietary articles and vermin killers from the operation of 
the Act. 
The numbers at the commencement of the paragraphs are those of the 
sections in the Queensland Bill, the numbers at the end indicate the 
corresponding section in the Tasmanian Bill. 
2. On Sale of poison specified in the first part of schedule A. Entry 
thereof to be made in a book. 5. 
3. Restrictions as to sale of any poison specified in the first part of 
Schedule A. 8. 
4. Sale of poison for the destruction of vermin to be made only to 
householders. 9. 
5. Arsenic and strychnine must be coloured. 7. 
C. Penalties for offences under this Act. 11. 
7. Sales of any poison medicines or by wholesale dealers excepted. 14 
8. Substances named in first schedule to be deemed poisons. 2. 
9. Unqualified persons not allowed to sell poisons. 
[N.B. — The wording of the last part of section 9 and of section 
10 is different from that usually employed and is as follows : — 
“ And the Secretary of the said Board shall keep a register of the 
names o.nd places of abode of all persons who have received a 
certificate under this section.” 
