waters’s quinine wine. 
3S4 
WATERS’S QUININE WINE. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—My attention lias been directed to your comments upon the sale of 
Orange Quinine Wine in ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal’ of this month, and I must 
request permission to point out an omission in one of your extracts from the cor¬ 
respondence between myself and the Board of Inland Revenue, which not only 
materially alters the sense of the letter in question, but is calculated to mislead a 
large number of the vendors of this article. 
nnT u !ff te n 1 alhl l u e J° “ dilt f d Au S- 31s t, 1865, and is quoted on page 297, 
and ib as followsThe Board having had before them your further applica¬ 
tion o, tne 3rd mst., I am directed to acquaint you that it had appeared to 
them from their previous information that your preparation of Orange Quinine 
. lne „ was sold beverage, and not as a medicine. But after further inqui- 
lit.-, ley are inclined to think that it is more properly classed with medicines, 
am that tne patent medicine licence and stamped label are required for its sale.” 
ns extract distinctly says that the article in question must be sold under the 
pa^um met icme laws, and in no other way; but the ensuing paragraph cf this 
letter very materially modifies this, and goes on to sav— u This, however does 
not make any substantial difference in the decision of "the Board as already ex- 
piesscc , -iey lavealieady stated that if the patent medicine stamped label and 
licence are used they will not require a British wine licence duty to be taken 
out by the vendor of orange quinine wine ; the British wine licence dutv would 
e imposed only in cases where the vendor, by neglecting or refusing to'use the 
parent medicine label and licence, might then show that he sold the orange 
quinine wine rather as a beverage than as a medicine.” 
Inis most clearly gives to vendors the option of selling it either as a medicine 
or beverage, as they please. 
bins is a most important point, and I should be much obliged if you would lay 
it before the trade. D J J 
I would also direct your attention to a point which has struck me very for- 
C \ l r J y r> IU 1 ’ efe 1 reuce * ,ie sale of this article by chemists, etc. It appears from 
Mr. I rices digest of the Acts you quote, that the first class of persons named 
therein which are chemists, druggists, and apothecaries, are, by the Act 52 
+ i l- p xem P ti ij 0 ' 11 fdl fbe restraining and disabling restrictions, except 
tliat of the impost of duties on the third sort of things tabulated, and most cer¬ 
tainly orange quinine wine is not one of them. Now this Act clearlv, I think 
exempts chemists, etc., from duty on its sale as a medicine ; and I submit that 
the decision embodied in the letter of Bee. 3rd, 1864, from the Board of In¬ 
land Revenue, equally exempts them from the excise duty on it as a bevera<>e • 
and that therefore it follows that the above trades may sell it without a British 
wme licence or the patent medicine label. 
I shouId be glad if you would look further into this subject, and inform me 
ii your views coincide with my own in this matter. 
I am, Sir, yours respectfully, 
0 e , ,, . , Robert Waters. 
-> Murtuis Lane, Cannon Street, London, 
December 5 th, 1865. 
[We are decidedly of opinion that chemists and druggists may sell Waters’s 
Quinine Wine without a British wine licence or a patent medicine stamp._ Ed 
Bharm. Journ.] 1 
