19 
Oldberg, Oscar, in discussing the adoption of the U. S. P. and 
N. F. as standards by the Food and Drug Law, says: 
This recognition of the pharmacopoeia and the formulary should prompt us 
in the future revisions of these two works to carefully consider their added 
importance. — Proc. Am. Pharrn. Ass., 1906, v. 54, p. 123. 
An editorial comments on the provisions of the Food and Drugs 
Law, and asks : 
Will the sale of articles, containing stated amounts of alcohol, by pharmacists 
be permitted except they take out rectifier’s licenses? The rules of the Internal 
Revenue Department require this. — Am. Druggist, N. Y., 1906, v. 49, p. 1. 
A news item presents a review of pure drug legislation and re- 
counts a number of reasons for the enactment of the so-called nar- 
cotic provisions of the Food and Drugs Laws. — Oil, Paint, and Drug 
Rep., 1906, v. TO, July 9, p. 9. 
Hallberg, C. S. N., asserts that section T of the Pure Food and 
Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, because of the variation permitted, will 
make a farce of the law and render it worse than useless because of 
the false security its passage has engendered. — Western Druggist, 
1906, v. 28, p. 480. 
A number of opinions from members of the wholesale drug trade 
are offered on the enactment of the Food and Drugs Act. The senti- 
ment appears to be uniformly friendly to the act, and the general 
consensus is that its practical working will be found to entail little, 
if any, hardship to any branch of the trade. — Ibid., v. 28, pp. 725-733. 
A circular relating to the Rules and Regulations on the Food and 
Drugs Act, sent to members of the National Wholesale Druggists’ 
Association, is reprinted. — Drug Topics, N. Y., 1906, v. 21, pp. 
355-356. 
An abstract discusses the dangers, indefiniteness, and incongruities 
of the Pure Food and Drugs Law. — Nat. Druggist, St. Louis, 1906, 
v. 36, pp. 277-279. 
An unsigned article comments on the rules and regulations adopted 
for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act. — Ibid., v. 36, pp. 
351-356. 
Hinrichs, Gustavus D., discusses the relations of the U. S. P. VIII, 
and the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and makes some rather 
positive statements in connection therewith. — Ibid., v. 36, pp. 403- 
404. 
An editorial calls attention to the publication, in another column, 
of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and points out that the 
ethical principles which underlie this law are of the utmost impor- 
tance and are now firmly established in national legislation. The 
law itself is said to be better in every respect than its most ardent 
supporters could reasonably have expected. The law is characterized 
as being strong in its definitions and not very weak in its concessions, 
