146 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA. 
June 1, 1887. 
AN IMAGINARY OBSTACLE TO INTERCOLONIAL 
PHARMACEUTICAL RECIPROCITY. 
A matter, which has much bearing on the question of Inter- 
colonial Pharmaceutical Keciprocity, was mentioned at a 
meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society of Queensland by Mr* 
D. Clarke, of Maryborough. He remarked that all registered 
chemists on the Victorian list had obtained their qualifications 
by examination. This is a mistake. There are 683 names in 
the last issue of the Pharmaceutical Register of Victoria, and 
of these no less than 498 are registered as “in business in 
Victoria before 1st October, 1876.” In this number a few, 
less than a dozen, are included as in business before the pas- 
ing of the Pharmacy Act in Great Britain, New South Wales, 
and New Zealand. Of the remainder, 78 have passed the 
Victorian Modified Examination, had therefore been appren- 
ticed for three years in Victoria, and had commenced their ap- 
prenticeship not less than three months before the passing of 
the Act. In this number are included a few who passed the 
British Modified Examination, and were, therefore, assistants 
m England before the passing of the Pharmacy Act. Forty- 
eight out of the 683 have passed the Victorian major examina- 
tion, seventeen the British major examination, thirty-six 
the British minor and six various other examinations. 
The supposition that all Victorian chemists have obtained 
their registration by examination is no more true than it 
would be of any other colony or Great Britain itself. 
OUR SECOND ENQUIRY-CO-OPERATIVE STORES 
STORE KEEPE RS. &o. 
In response to the circular distributed with our March issue 
we have received a very representative series of replies. These 
are now compiled and almost ready for publication, but 
before dealing with the subject we find it desirable to 
make some further enquiries as to the geographical distribu- 
tion of chemists. These enquiries are already in hand and 
we trust their results will be ready for publication in an earlv 
ssue. 
“FAIR-MINDED" JOURNALISM- 
Under this heading our contemporary, the Axo^tndaf^hui 
Journal of Pharmacy, in its last issue makes a furious attack 
upon ourselves. Our readers must be weary of the rejoinders 
we have repeatedly had to make to similar attacks but we 
crave their indulgence for a brief trespass upon their time 
The origin of the attack it will be seen is the republication in 
our London journal, of part of a report printed in one of 
our earlier issues. We leave our London Editor to fight his 
own battles, but reply to some points affecting ourselves. The 
writer of the article in question, indulges in abusive language 
of a kind rarely met with except in third-class country journals! 
and not likely to recommend his view's to the majority of the 
members of the society bis journal represents. We do not propose 
to follow him in this. But _ he ventures in two or three cases 
on statements of fact, and in these w'e meet him with a fiat 
denial and a challenge to disprove our statements. 
Here is the first statement of fact ; we quote the exact 
words : — 
druggist of London, of 26tli March, under 
the heading Pharmacy m Australia,” has the following, in connSii 
with what purports to be a report of a meeting of the rAarmaJeutical 
Society of South Wales:— “An application from the Aii:itranan 
Joiinwloj Phannucy to hti furmshetl with reports of meetings of the 
Council, A-c., was objected to, upon the ground that the Society, having 
an oftcial organ, no necessity coMld be shown for supplying reports to 
another journal, especially as all tlie members of the L'ciety receh-ed 
copies 01 THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA 
excerpt is almost exactly a re-print from the February issue of 
Bros.’ trade publication \s 
a matter of fact, the paragraiJb is a mendacious one, and entirely mis- 
represents what took place at the meeting in qnestiW, a correct Lport 
of which was given in our issue of February last, as follows The coi- 
respondeiitof the Amtralmian Journal of Pharmacy wrote applying t^be 
recognised in that capacity, and requesting to be Jiipplied witircopies of 
last examination papers. The ecRiest was agreed to.” 
V zU It be believed that the writer has had the audacity to 
take a report of a meeting on February 1, to contradict our 
report of a meeting held on January 4? This is the case, and 
the mendzicity is not in our paragraph, but in theirs. The ap- 
plication of the Journal of Pharmacij w-is made- 
on January 4, and our report represents fairly what took place 
at the meeting. Tlie application for examination papers was. 
made on February 1 (after our February issue was already in. 
the hands of many of our subscribers), and the result was 
reported in our March issue, as follows: — 
impels w{s gS ^'i^nished with copies of the last examination 
And our report of the same meeting contains also this, 
paragraph : — 
Publication of Reports. 
Upon the motion of Mr Melhuisli, seconded by Mr. Abrahams it w-x^ 
resolved ” That alUournals be snppiicd with a copy of the SfAute^of 
the meetings of the Pharinaceutical Council and Pharmacy Board of 
^ew boiith Wales, on application to the Secretary.” ^ 
It is hardly worth troubling our readers about a matter so- 
entirely within the private control of a Society, but we may 
say that we have documentary proof that we expressed an 
opinion favourable to this last action of the New South Wales- 
Society long before it was carried. We believe in publicity 
opportunity of acknowledging the courtesy of 
the Pharmacy Board of Victoria and the Pharmaceutical 
Society of Australasia in supplying us with reports of their 
proceedings. 
The second question of fact is the circulation of the Austra- 
lasian Journal of Pharmacy. We emphatically repudiate all 
responsibility for the statement that only three or four mem- 
bers of the New South Wales Society were likely to see the 
reports. Whether it is accurate or not is beside the question. 
The statement was made at the meeting and was reported, 
and there our responsibility ends. But our contemporary 
goes on to say — ^ 
“ As we have said, the application of the correspondent of the Austra- 
lian iurnal of PJuirmacy was granted [not at the meeting, ref erred to in 
the extract given from The Chemist and Druggist, but at a subsequent 
meetig reported in a subsequent issue of The Chemist and Druggist 
j' seems scarcely necessary to assert that the- 
sugpstion that the Australasian Journal of Pharmacy had, compara- 
m New South Wales is equally ['] untrue 
''tI the paragraph. Nor is this a matter^ of mere 
reports of the Pharmaceutical Society of 
Austialasia give full particulars of the members of the society 
throughout the colonies, the payment of whose yearly subscrip- 
tioiis entitles them, as a matter of right, to copies of this journal. Our 
circulation, there^re, is a thoroughly genuine one, and quite exceptional 
advantages are oftered to subscribers, advertisers, and the public, of 
obtaining an exact knowledge of the audience which we address ” 
We have no wish to wrong our contemporary, so we give it 
the benefit of the fullest publicity. It appeals to the annual 
reports ol the Pharmaceutical Society of Australasia. From 
repoit issued in March last we find that the membership of 
the society at the end of 1886 consisted of 231 members resi- 
dent m \ ictoria, 20 honorary members, a single member 
residing in London, one in the United States, one in Western 
Australia, 2 in Fiji, 16 in Tasmania, 16 in South Australia, 11 
in Queensland, 2 m New Zealand and 26 in New South Wales, 
a total of 327. According to the proof to which its own appeal 
is made the Australasian Journal of Pharmacu addresses an 
audience of exactly 327. What then becomes of the statement 
published every month “we guarantee a hona tide circulation of 
1250 copies each month ?” But the appeal is ill judged, We have 
reason to believe that in addition to the members of the society 
tfie jeurnal //«, S' a certain number of subscribers zind that the 
annual reports af the society do give an exact knowledge 
ot the audience it addresses. If they do and our contempor- 
ai7 claims that they do, then in the colony of Victoria alone 
where the society IS strongest our own paying subscribers are 
considerably more numerous than the resident members of the 
society; m ISew South Wales they are more than ten times as 
numerous, in ISew Zealand more than a hundred times and la 
each of the other colonies our subscribers outnumber members 
of the society very greatly. We invite anyone interested in 
the matter even the Editor of the Australasian Journal of 
1 hmuMcy himself, to examine our subscription register and 
test the accuracy ot these statements. 
The third point we deal with is contained in the following 
paragraph. ^ 
Just liere, as an illustration of the methods adopted bv our pont^m. 
SSsTf profession should know^that the con- 
of Australasia latelysenttothe- 
b! i Victoria a communication drawing attention to a paragraph 
in their publication, bringing into question the expemliture of the 
Government grant in aid of the college, of which it is unnecessary tz> 
satisfactory account has been preimred for the propL 
authorities. It seems difficult to attritoe this \ctiun to any Xv 
