576 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
ing the correspondence which you have pub¬ 
lished upon the subject, I have concluded 
that, imperfect as is my own comprehension 
of the question, I may yet draw attention 
to some points which, if I cannot do aught 
to elucidate, I may at least make the extent 
and the evil of their obscurity more conspi¬ 
cuous. 
In looking over the exemptions from the 
duty, I do not see anything which clearly 
exempts a cough mixture from duty, whether 
that mixture be the nostrum of the maker 
or dispensed from the prescription of a me¬ 
dical man—if it be directed “ A tablespoon¬ 
ful to be taken when the cough is trouble¬ 
some.” The exemptions, as quoted in the 
December Journal, page 317, show that mix¬ 
tures are exempt if they have not a written 
label by which they are recommended for 
the relief of any ailment.* So by implica¬ 
tion, it may be concluded that their having 
such a label renders them liable to the duty. 
My conviction is, that in such cases and 
many others, we are allowed to escape by 
sufferance, and at any time the law might 
be turned against us. 
On the other hand, the Pharmacy Act, 
clause 16, reserves to all makers of patent 
medicines the right to make and vend the 
same, no matter what the composition may 
be, so long as the stamp and licence regu¬ 
lations be complied with; thus, Mr. Smith 
may make “ Smith’s laudanum,” equal to 
B. P. tincture of opium, and sell the same 
stamped, though he possess no educational 
qualifications; and, if it suits his fancy or 
his pocket, he may make “ Smith’s Aconite 
Liniment,” or “Strychnine Drops,” with 
like freedom, and not be required to label 
them poison; the three-halfpenny stamp 
being capable of covering a multitude of 
sins. 
If I be correct in these two interpreta¬ 
tions, I think it cannot be questioned that 
the patent medicine laws require either total 
abolition or very considerable amendment. 
If, after having endeavoured to understand 
the law upon these two points, I have failed 
to do so, this of itself is evidence that the 
law is not such as it is desirable to per¬ 
petuate. 
While the plea of ignorance will not pro¬ 
tect us, the law ought to be so constructed 
that those who are under its daily operation 
should not find it impossible to understand 
its requirements. 
So much for the necessity of some change, 
now for a word or two on either of the two 
propositions. 
Suppose the law to be consolidated and 
rendered intelligible, and yet the stamp re¬ 
quired upon medicines which were labelled 
* See the last eight lines of the conclud- 
ng paragraph of exemptions. 
with instructions for use in the alleviation oi 
any complaint, I think the stamp should be 
reduced instead of increased, as some have 
suggested. 
At present the duty is systematically 
evaded, because it is inconvenient and bur¬ 
densome. I do not mean that there is a 
systematic breach of the laiv, but the duty is 
legally evaded by the omission of such direc¬ 
tions as would render the medicines liable, 
the freedom from liability to the stamp 
being felt of greater moment than the con¬ 
venience and safety of the patient. A law 
can only be considered to work well when 
there ceases to be a great and constant 
temptation to honest men to evade it. One 
of the greatest objections to the present ar¬ 
rangement is, that a medicine which is sup¬ 
plied with full directions regarding its use 
and properties,—which is always desirable 
in the introduction of new remedies or new 
preparations of old remedies,—requires to be 
stamped, and forthwith it becomes illegal 
for ever after to sell the same without a 
stamp, whether the instructions for its use 
in various maladies be continued or not. 
The introducer has, therefore, to choose be¬ 
tween the omission of instructions which are 
in all respects desirable, or the making of 
his article into what is called a “ quack me¬ 
dicine.” If the stamp is to be continued, I 
think a reduction in its value to one penny 
in the shilling, and halfpenny stamps for 
smaller quantities, would do much to remove 
the burdensomcness of the impost, and not 
improbably produce a revenue equal to the 
present. 
Supposing the patent medicine laws to be 
abolished altogether, then arises the ques-' 
tion, how is the sale of secret and proprie¬ 
tary medicines to be regulated? Is that to 
be abolished also ? If secret medicines are 
not to be abolished, will their sale be con¬ 
fined to the registered Chemist, and will he 
be responsible for the poison-label appearing 
on all such as contain any of the scheduled 
drugs ? To confine the sale to registered 
Chemists, without making them in any way 
responsible for the contents or effects of the 
remedies so sold, appears to me to be seek¬ 
ing advantages under false pretences. 
I should think it derogatory to our Society 
to aim at such a change, as I regard it a 
disgrace to our officials that vermin killers 
are placed in the second part of the schedule 
of poisons without regard to their composi¬ 
tion. 
If strychnine is to be sold for vermin kill¬ 
ing, I do not know any principle of justice 
or of safety in allowing it to be sold to any 
stranger and without registration, on con¬ 
dition of its true name and nature being 
hidden under the words “ Vermin Killer 
nor do I believe that the killers being placed 
upon this part of the schedule, will afford 
