CORRESPONDENCE. 
737 
own profit.” In another place he says. 
“Like all other things, it must ultimately 
stand or fall by its merits, for fashions do 
not last long, and we can easily estimate its 
prospects of permanence on that score.” 
Here I agree with him; it must stand or 
fall by its merits, and I say that it has 
stood by its merits, and not only so, but con¬ 
tinues to stand and gain ground steadily. 
And it has done so for nearly half a century 
or more. It is not only gaining ground 
with the people, but with the medical pro¬ 
fession also. Certainly fashions do not last 
long, seeing that almost every month gives 
rise to a new one of one kind or another. 
Therefore, I say that homoeopathy is not 
merely a fashion or a sham; and I think 
Air. Giles will not be able to “estimate its 
prospects of permanence on that score.” 
However, as he says he can, and that easily, 
I hope he will favour us with his estimate. 
Again, he says, “ But when we proclaim 
ourselves ready to traffic in truth or error 
'with equal alacrity, provided only that we 
put money in our purse, we cannot make 
shams reai, but we do give such an air of 
unreality to the whole, that the world may 
well doubt if it be anything more than a 
seriously-played farce, got up for the bene¬ 
fit of the actors and the mystification of the 
beholders.” 
The above are certainly very strong terms 
to use, but, I think, they apply equally well 
to Mr. Giles as to those he is condemning. 
Does he not “humbug” his customer by 
consenting to supply him with Morrison’s 
Pills, knotting them to be a quackery and a 
sham ? Therefore we could not be surprised 
if Mr. Giles were to supply “ cheap pow¬ 
dered slate for costly scammony.” Such 
reasoning is as applicable to the vendor of 
allopathic “shams” as Mr. G.’s reasoning 
is to those who sell homoeopathic medi¬ 
cines. 
He says, too, that he thinks he knows in¬ 
stances where physicians or patients in 
search of reliable allopathic remedies prefer 
to seek them where these handy-dandy 
pranks are not played. What a pity it is 
he is not certain he knows of such in¬ 
stances, rather than thinks he does! 
I notice a letter from another correspon¬ 
dent, signed “A. P. S.,” on the too preva¬ 
lent system of undercharging by chemists, 
who in this manner try to draw away cus¬ 
tomers from, in many cases, their more 
worthy brethren. 
Truly he must be a “cutter” who would 
charge Is. od. for 20 pills and §x mixture; 
and I should be inclined to doubt the quality 
of his drugs, especially the bismuth, and 
perhaps whether the full dose ordered was 
given. 
“ A. P. S.” does not see that in condemn¬ 
ing others he condemns himself, for he only 
charges 2s. 6d. If the customer were a 
“ poor ” one, then I think the Coventry 
chemist the more praiseworthy of the two ; 
but I presume him to be a “respectable” 
one, and in that case “ A. P. S.” has fol¬ 
lowed the example set him at Coventry. 
My experience of the charges in this 
neighbourhood leads me to state the price at 
not less than 3s., and more likely 3s. 3d. or 
3s. 6d., viz. pills Is., mixture 2s., 2s. 3d., or 
2s. 6d. I should say 3s. 3d. Truly “here 
are now examples of the undercharging of 
medicines, which has caused great annoy¬ 
ance to the trade;” and, with “A. P. S.,” 
I hope the time will soon come “ when the 
Society’s Register will contain no such men 
as those I have alluded to ” (viz. “A. P. S.” 
and the Coventry chemist), who do so much 
injury to their fellow-tradesmen. 
Apologizing for thus intruding upon your 
space, 
I remain, Sir, yours respectfully, 
Drefla Llahsram. 
P.S.—It is not necessary to label the 
medicine “Poison.” It should be entered 
in the Prescription Book. 
Sir,—Permit me to thank you for your 
editorial remarks on chemists and druggists 
selling homoeoj^athic medicines,etc., to which 
your attention had been called by Mr. Giles’s 
letter. 
After having for eight years dispensed 
allopathic prescriptions, and for fifteen years 
homoeopathic prescriptions,—and also, hav¬ 
ing had considerable experience in the pre¬ 
paration of the remedies employed in both, 
—I am sure an educated chemist need not 
sacrifice his self-respect or that of his con¬ 
freres by preparing, dispensing, or retailing 
the homoeopathic remedies. I have never 
hesitated to dispense the “ placebos ” pre¬ 
scribed either by the allopathic or the ho¬ 
moeopathic practitioner; and, whatever may 
have been the amusement or the astonish¬ 
ment occasioned by them, I have never 
allowed my own opinions to induce me to 
depart from the strictest integrity in their 
preparation. 
If allopathic and homoeopathic doctors 
could agree to differ on the question of a 
therapeutic law, misunderstandings and jea¬ 
lousies would cease, and obstacles would no 
longer be placed in the way of chemists sup¬ 
plying to their customers whatever they re¬ 
quire, within legal limits. If you would 
allow me to discuss this question in your 
pages with your respected correspondent, I 
think I shall be able to remove much of the 
misconception which exists about it, most of 
which is traceable to misstatements as to the 
bona-fide preparation of the homoeopathic 
medicines, some persons asserting that they 
are inert, and others that they are dangerous 
poisons under disguise. 
