ON THE CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS BILL. 
123 
110. Mr. Black suggested, if you had this examination in country places, you would 
find great difficulty in getting persons to take up the sale of drugs ?—I cannot agree 
in that view. I think the trade of chemist and druggist is very widely diffused, and 
I believe it to be a very profitable one ; and, if anything, I think there are too many 
in it. 
111. Supposing it was desirable, as in Franco, to prohibit certain medicines which 
are poisons from being sold without certain restrictions, do you not think this would 
meet what is wanted to a certain extent; that the people should by what is written 
over their shops be able to distinguish whether a man has been a well-educated man 
or not ?—Yes. 
112 . And if they go into one shop where there is a sign, if that man has gone through 
a certain standard examination, and they go into another shop where there is no 
such outward sign that he has had an education, they would go at their peril ?—Yes. 
113. Would not that be a middle course between the two cases, which is, that no 
man should dispense medicine without a thorough examination, and the present- 
system ?—That would be on the principle of caveat emptor. If you will allow me to 
suggest, we should take rather a wider view than that. People cannot judge about 
medicine, or what may be put into a bottle, as they can in purchasing any other 
things. I think that rule would hardly apply if we were to consider the safety of the 
public. With regard to the danger a man would go through, we should not prefer 
the chances of death for a person ignorant of the properties of drugs. No person 
should be licensed to make up a medical prescription except a person educated to the 
business. You say very truly they might at their own risk do so, and if it were like 
a surgical operation I should say yes to your question. Take this case: no man 
would go to an ignorant and an uneducated person for the purpose of having a leg 
taken off, but he might go into a shop, thinking there was no great difference, as there 
were the same kind of toothbrushes, and soap, and other things for sale, and he might 
consider one shop was as good and as safe as the other. But, in place of medicine, 
he might have handed to him a substance that would kill him outright. 
114<. Is it not so with regard to the medical profession; under the Medical Reform 
Act no man can put up certain titles; if he does, he would be rendered liable to a 
prosecution ?—Certainly. 
115. But a man is not restricted from acting; this is a case in point; the public 
caii go to that man, and they can go to the other side of the street, and go to a man 
who has not been examined ?—Allow me to make this observation. A person 
requiring a serious operation performed would, of course, have sense enough to know' 
it would never do to trust himself into the hands of a person not examined. That is 
not the position of a person going to have medicine made up. I would suggest to you 
that the Legislature should really interpose to protect him against his own confidence 
and ignorance in a matter in which he would not be a good judge. He might be, with 
regard to surgical operations, but he would not be as regards prescriptions. He w r ould 
not know whether the shopkeeper put in prussic acid or distilled water, but he would 
know whether a man was capable of using properly the amputating knife. 
116. Do you think there is any difficulty in doing that by which those who run 
may read?—Certainly not. 
117. Supposing registrations were had, and it was known that he employed certain 
indications, and those were wanting ?—I think if you were to apply that knowledge 
to persons, you might do some good; but you would not do the amount of good you 
■would by confining the sale only to authorized men. 
118. Admitting what exists in France, and what you have pointed out as the best 
way, you have stated there would be a great difficulty in this country, where every¬ 
thing is free, to submit to these restrictions ?—Yes. 
119. Would not such a middle course as I have suggested be a step in the right 
direction, which might be adopted, and lead to what might be a perfect system?—I 
think it might. If you fix the date after which all persons keeping drugs and poisons 
should be bound to produce evidence of their fitness by examination, I see po harm 
in dealing with that retrospectively. I seriously advise the Committee not to allow 
men to hold themselves out to be what they are not. 
Dr. Bracly .] 167. Have you made up your mind as to the fact that there is a 
