43 
Caldwell, Paul, points out that the relative proportions between 
the metric and apothecary's weights do not always maintain the right 
ratio, and that there will necessarily be a slight difference in the 
*/ ^ 
results obtained from the use of the metric or the alternate, apothe- 
cary's. formula, given in the X. F. III. — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., 
X. Y., 1906, v. 50, p. 351. 
An editorial discussing the article by Caldwell says : 
If experts fail to do tlieir “ converting ” properly, when they take all the 
time they want, there is only one thing for others to do when their time is 
limited, and that is to employ metric weights and measures in weighing and 
measuring quantities expressed in the metric system. Nothing could be simpler, 
and why druggists work themselves into a fret over “ converting ” — and then 
probably make a mistake — when they could include a set of metric weights and 
measures in their next order to their jobber, at a cost of less than two dollars, 
is a mystery. — Ibid., v. 50, p. 391. 
Oldberg. Oscar, outlines the method by which the metric system of 
weights and measures was made compulsory in the Marine-Hospital 
Service in 1878. — Proc. Am. Pliarm. Ass., 1906, v. 54, p. 540. 
La Wall, Chas. H., calls attention to a bill pending in Congress to 
introduce the metric system of weights and measures in all of the de- 
partments of the United States Government. He also calls attention 
to an address bv the American Metrological Society, which recounts 
some of the advantages of the metric system and points out the need 
for further enlarging upon its usefulness. — Bull. Am. Pharrn. Ass., 
1906, v. 1, pp. 139-141. 
An abstract refers to an address by A. G. Bell to the Com- 
mittee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the U. S. House of 
Representatives, in which he calls attention to the widespread use of 
the metric system of weights and measures and its general compli- 
ance with the decimal coinage now in use. — J. Franklin Inst., Phila., 
1906, v. 161, p. 394. 
9. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. 
“ Gnomon “ points out that the Lancet , while agreeing with the 
general proposition that the pharmacopoeia should combine simplic- 
ity with efficiency, also asserts that it is possible to narrow down too 
finely the choice of drugs which form the offensive and defensive 
weapons of the physician in combating disease. The desire to elim- 
inate the useless drugs must be tempered by the fact that our knowl- 
edge of the pharmacological action of simple drugs is too limited to 
justify a rigid exclusion from the pharmacopoeia of those about 
which there is any doubt. — Pharm. J.. Bond., 1906, v. 22, p. 10. 
Goldmann, Felix, points out that in considering the admission of 
an article to the pharmacopoeia it is not alone necessary to consider 
the uses to which that article is being put at the time, but also the 
particular stage of development and the causes that are directly 
