36 
system by which any revision must be brought about. — Am. J. 
Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, pp. 77-87. 
Stevens, A. B., notes the criticisms and suggestions of Lehman. 
Searby, and others as to the size of the book and how it might be 
diminished. — Proc. Michigan Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 95. 
Wilbert, M. I., points out that a book of the technical nature that 
a pharmacopoeia must necessarily be is not useful to physicians as a 
reference book on materia medica. He suggests the publication of 
a readily available reference list containing pharmacopoeial articles, 
their medicinal uses and doses. — J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 47, p. 1990. 
4. PUBLICITY. 
Remington, Jos. P., in discussing the suggestion that publicity be 
given to the proceedings of the Committee on Revision, says: 
If the work of revision conducted by 26 recognized authorities in some branch 
of the work required five years to reach conclusions, how long would it take a 
larger committee, composed of 40 state pharmaceutical associations. 40 state 
medical societies, with 5 or 6 national associations, together with the depart- 
ments of the Government, to reach conclusions? — Proc. Am. _ Pharm. Ass.. 1906. 
v. 54, p. 77. 
Thorburn. A. D., offered the following resolutions at a meeting of 
the Chicago branch of the A. Ph. A., which, after some discussion, 
were adopted : 
Whereas in proposed legislation before Congress and state legislatures it is 
intended that the U. S. Pharmacopoeia and National Formulary shall be 
authoritative publications fixing legal standards for crude drugs and prepara- 
tions ; and 
Whereas these publications are now controlled by bodies whose appointment 
and conduct is not provided for in any of our food and drug laws, but whose 
acts will have the authority of laws : Therefore be it 
Resolved l)i/ the Chicago Branch of the American Pharmaceutical Associa- 
tion, That the Pure Food Bill now pending in Congress should be amended to 
require that bodies controlling the United States Pharmacopoeia and National 
Formulary should give frequent public hearings before there be any changes 
in. withdrawals from, or additions to these standards. — Bull. Am. Pharm. Ass., 
1906. v. 1. p. 147. 
Thrush, M. Clayton, thinks that to keep pharmacists and phy- 
sicians ignorant of what is being done, and then suddenly project 
upon them innumerable changes, many of them radical, some of them 
dangerous, and nearly all of them important, is to cause them an 
embarrassment which is as great as it is unnecessary. — Am. J. 
Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, p. 30. 
An editorial note, apropos of a protest from W. S. Vaughan 
against the numerous changes in the pharmacopoeia (see under aco- 
nite) says: 
We hope that publicity will be' given the work of the next Committee of 
Revision so that the medical and pharmaceutic public may know what is com- 
