BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL CONFERENCE. 
162 
Mr. Savage recommended that Mr. Kerr’s case should he laid before the Council of 
the Pharmaceutical Society, and their interference solicited. 
Mr. Han bury reminded the meeting that two distinct questions had been raised during 
the discussion,—lstly, that of an excise duty ; and 2ndly, that of liability to a patent 
medicine stamp. The two subjects should be kept from being confused together. 
Mr. Brady suggested that the most ready way to ascertain if any labels were liable 
to the patent medicine stamp was to send them up to Somerset House, and ask the 
direct question. 
Mr. Schacht spoke strongly of the behaviour of the excise in many cases towards 
persons whom that body knew to have been influenced by no unworthy motives, although 
perhaps unfortunate enough to have violated some bye-law. The discussion that had 
already occurred, showed how liable they were to fall into error, as there had been very 
different opinions expressed as to what was allowable and what was not. Mr. Schacht 
stated that he once tried the course suggested by Mr. Brady, and sent up all his labels 
to Somerset House for opinions as to their involving stamps. A number were returned 
to him as not being liable, but no answer was given as to those he was most anxious to 
be informed about, but the labels were kept! The grievances belonging to an excise 
prosecution were very great, whether gaining or losing the decision, since the existence 
of a charge of defrauding the excise was insufferable to an honourable tradesman ; 
he urged especially an attempt to reduce to a simple code the excise laws, which were 
now so dubious. Were this done, he was sure that the members of the drug trade would 
obey the law. 
Mr. Baildon thought that the whole question of the patent medicine stamp should 
be looked into. It was based upon a deception, since the public believed that so-called 
“patent medicines” were really what the literal construction of the term implied. Of 
course, those present knew that the patents for Anderson’s pills, and a few other proprie¬ 
tary medicines which alone could properly claim the term “patent,” had long since 
expired. 
Mr. Ebert explained the relation of pharmaceutists to the excise laws in the United 
States. Many pharmaceutists take out a liquor licence, and are thus enabled to supply 
to invalids and families wines and spirits, which command their confidence in preference 
to those sold at the spirit stores. Some of the leading houses will not take this licence. 
Since the war, all pay a distinct tax for exercising their profession. The definition of 
liability to the patent medicine stamp is similar to that obtaining in England. 
After the thanks of the meeting had been offered to Mr. Kerr for bringing the sub¬ 
ject forward, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Andrews 
(London), that the President, Messrs. Brough, Kerr, Nicol, Schacht, and Young be a 
sub-committee to prepare a recommendation upon the subject, and present the same to 
the sitting on the following morning. 
ON BURGUNDY PITCH. 
BY DANIEL HANBURY. 
The authors of the British Pharmacopoeia have defined Burgundy Pitch (Pix 
Burgundica ) as a resinous exudation from the stem of the Spruce Fir , Abies ex¬ 
cel sa DC. ( Pinus Airies L., P. excelsa Lam.) melted and strained. They have 
thus followed the London College of Physicians, which for nearly a century and 
a half has included this substance in its Materia Medica, indicating in the later 
editions of its pharmacopoeia a similar botanical origin. 
On the Continent the term Pix Burgundica (which is not frequently applied) 
appears to have a less definite signification than with us, being used synony¬ 
mously with Resina alba to designate the resins of various coniferous trees after 
purification by being boiled in water and strained. The following description 
is translated from one of the more recent and esteemed works on pharmacology, 
that of the late Dr. Berg.* 
* Pharmazeutische IVaarenkunde, Berlin, 1863, p. 566, 
