21 
The Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the Food and 
Drugs Law are reprinted. — Ibid., 338. 
An editorial points out the need for state legislation along the lines 
of the Federal Pure Food and Drugs Act and points out that each 
State is left to regulate its own internal affairs. The legislation 
needed is that which shall enforce the principle, “ Let the label tell.” — 
J. Am. M. Ass., v. 18, p. 365. 
2. THE PHARMACOPOEIA AS A LEGAL STANDARD. 
An editorial points out that pharmacists have long clamored for 
recognition of the pharmacopoeia. Xow that it is recognized legally 
we find that many of the standards set therein are so high as to be 
impracticable. In the hearing before the pure food and drug com- 
mission a committee, representing sixteen of the leading manufac- 
turers of pharmaceutical preparations and chemicals in the United 
States, asserted that the standards set by the pharmacopoeia are irra- 
tional and wholly impracticable. — Am. Druggist, A. Y., 1906, v. 19, 
p. 159. 
An editorial, in commenting on corrections and emandations of 
the LI. S. Pharmacopoeia, expresses the belief that it is a matter of 
serious doubt whether the pharmacopoeia, to be issued with amend- 
ments and corrections January .1, 1907. will be the “ official standard “ 
or not. — Xat. Drug., St. Louis, 1906, v. 36, p. 350. 
An editorial raises the question, How is the druggist to know which 
revision of the pharmacopoeia he must take as his official guide ? and 
cites an opinion of the supreme court of Ohio and a similar opinion 
by the attorney-general of Illinois to the effect that the pharmacopoeia 
official at the time of the enactment of the law is the one intended, 
whereas the interpretation in Xew York takes that which is official 
at the time of construing and applying the law. — Drug. Circ. & Chem. 
Gaz., X. Y., 1906, v. 50. p. 10. 
England, Joseph AY., discusses the legal recognition of the U. S. P. 
and questions the legality of future issues unless each new issue is 
recognized by specific legislation. — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1906, v. 
51, pp. 215-218. 
Leffman, Henry, commenting on the U. S. P. as a legal standard, 
says : 
Its errors of omission and commission in analytic methods can be supple- 
mented by tbe knowledge of tbe worker or by regular analytical manuals, and, 
as a last resort, by special circulars and journal articles; but its errors as a 
work of authority must stand until remedied by tbe parent body. I regard tbe 
work as dangerous in its legal relations * * * Tbe manner of publica- 
tion of tbe book .gives it a factitious authority and tbe use of tbe word 
“ official adds to this. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, p. 85. 
