116 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA. 
May 1, 1887. 
servant of this miscellaneous Board — but this by the way). It 
offers the Council of the Society (not the Pharmacy Board, be 
it noticed, though that is the proper authority under the exist- 
ing Act) the control of the examinations and of the teachers ; 
but only the nominal control, for the Technical Board will 
always have its veto ; and it offers the President a seat at the 
Technical Board, ex officio. It offers to pay the expenses of 
the proposed College, but as that simply means that it will con- 
tinue its existing Pharmacy Department, this item may be 
ruled out. There is no proposal that the College shall be con- 
ducted on a more liberal scale than hitherto. 
Thirdly comes the question, what does the Technical Board 
•want in return for its munificent offers? 
It requires the Pharmaceutical Society virtually to drop its 
Incorporation Bill, and thus consent to remain in its present 
anomalous and inconvenient position (section vii). It requires 
“that Society to hand over its present control and influence on 
Pharmaceutical Education, its power to appoint professors 
(section iv), and the fees for classes, certificates, and diplomas, 
and all gifts and bequests made for the use of the School of 
Pharmacy, and, finally, mirabile dictu, to alter its bye-laws to 
fall in with a fancy scheme propounded by men without the 
«lightest pharmaceutical qualification. That is to say, the 
Society would lose all prestige and become an appendage to the 
Technical Board. It would lose all reason for its existence 
beyond mere trade’s unionism and would sink to a lower level 
than any Society in these colonies. Moreover, beyond and behind 
all this, there seems an intention to constrain the Pharmaceu- 
tical Authorities sooner or later to accept the certificate 
granted under the authority of the Board of Technical Educa- 
tion as a qualification for the practice of Pharmacy, altogether 
apart from the sanction of the Pharmacy Board. 
Next, we must consider the present position of the Phar- 
macy Department or Technical Board. Our correspondent 
states that the number of purely pharmaceutical students last 
session was only seven or eight. We have made particular en- 
•quiriesof those in the best position to know the facts, but though 
we were assured that the number of chemists who attended the 
classes of the Technical Board was very much larger than this, it 
was admitted that the larger number included many besides 
pharmaceutical students and many classes outside the phar* 
maceutical department. We could not ascertain how many 
strictly pharmaceutical students had attended the classes of 
the Pharmaceutical Department, so, till further evidence is 
forthcoming, we must accept the statement of our corres 2 Don- 
dent. Thus we must consider that the Pharmacy Department 
■of the Technical Board, to which the 28 students of the School 
of Pharmacy are to be attached, contains itself some seven or 
eight students. It seems a case of the tail wagging the dog. 
A much simpler plan than all this is, as already hinted, 
that the Technical Board should handover to the Pharmaceu- 
tical Society its Pharmaceutical Department, and some portion 
of its annual subsidy. What has the Techmcal Board to do 
with Pharmacy, any more than with medicine or law ? What 
would doctors or lawyers say if the Board offered to take up 
the teaching of those subjects ? What should prevent this 
transfer ? The Technical Board would lose a Department and 
would also lose an expense. What objections can be raised to 
this? To our minds it seems simple in the extreme, a com- 
plete substitute for the elaborate and laborious scheme pro- 
posed. The only opposition we can imagine will be from 
persons who have a great sense of the importance of the Tech- 
nical Board and of the necesssity of maintaining its prestige. 
We cannot believe that the Council of the Pharmaceutical 
Society of New South Wales will consent to such a complete 
abdication of their position, not only as leaders of Pharmacy, 
but as Pharmacists themselves, as would be implied by the 
acceptance of this proposition. They do right to consider it, 
and to consider it carefully and with full intention to under- 
stand it in the most favourable sense. But there is 
not the slightest doubt that its acceptance would place them 
in a position of dependence unexampled in Pharmaceutical 
Educational bodies throughout the civilised world. 
PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION. 
Our columns bear testimony to the activity of the Pharma- 
ceutical Society of South Australia, which seems the only 
body in these colonies able to maintain the interest in 
monthly meetings of its Council and of its general members. 
It is known that the Society is now discussing the question of 
Pharmaceutical Legislation, and we therefore invite the 
attention of our readers to some of the subjects and methods 
of such legislation, although the whole subject is familiar to 
them. 
We propose to deal with the question very briefly. The 
reason for all legislation is the benefit of the public and 
it is recognised that one section must not be benefited at the 
expense of another. It is desirable, therefore, that some 
restrictions should be placed on the sale of poisons, and also 
that the joublic should be able to distinguish persons who are 
duly qualified by education and experience to dispense medi- 
cines from those who have no such qualification. But it will 
be open to^ argument if it is desirable to prevent the public 
from obtaining medicines and medicinal substances under 
any circumstances from unqualified persons. 
As regards the sale of poisons it is desirable that all without 
exception should be sold in packets bearing the word “Poison ” 
to warn the owner, the name of the poison for the guidance 
of the doctor called to attend a case of poisoning, and the 
name of some responsible vendor within the reach of the arm 
of the law and thus punishable if any offence has been com- 
mitted against the public good. It is also highly desirable 
and will be more so as population increases in density, that 
the^ sales of all the more virulent j>oisons shall be accurately 
registered so that in the case of criminal jjoisoning a further 
means of detecting the offender shall be in reach of law 
officers. 
It is also arguable if a simple antidote should not be named 
on each poison label, and if it should not be made penal to 
have in possession poisons not duly labelled or left about in 
accessible positions. To these restrictions there should be no 
exceptions. 
There are many poisons so virulent or so little used in the 
ordinary routine of life, and therefore so little understood by 
most people, that it is desirable to confine their sale to j)ersons 
who will exercise due care in handling and selling them. 
Such poisons should be enumerated, and as science makes 
fresh discoveries their number should be increased. The only 
persons to whom their sale can be confined are chemists and 
druggists, and it should be an offence for anyone but a 
chemist to sell any such poisons. 
The popular demand for patent and other medicines in con- 
venient form for self administration has hitherto compelled 
legislatures to allow of their sale by others than chemists, but 
in these cases some person responsible to the judicial tribunals 
of the country for mistake or carelessness should be named 
on each packet. The supply of medicines by doctors or on 
their prescriptions, of wholesale quantities to retail chemists 
and by veterinary surgeons, is properly relieved of certain of 
these restrictions. But poisonous photographic materials 
should he kept under strict control. 
To secure the proper education of chemists an examining 
body must be constituted with power to register duly qualified 
