THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [December 23,167a. 
5 iO 
by Medical Officers of Health, to monopolize the 
office of public analyst, and we think this course 
must have been taken without sufficient con¬ 
sideration. 
The medical papers of last week appear to have 
taken especial umbrage at the representation of the 
claims urged by the Pharmaceutical Society on be¬ 
half of the eligibility of pharmacists for the appoint¬ 
ment of analyst. Setting aside the element of abuse 
which is introduced into the remarks of one of our 
contemporaries, we will venture to point out in 
answer to the arguments of the Medical Times and 
Gazette, that in this case too much stress seems to be 
laid on the word “ medical ” when it is endeavoured 
to interpret it as properly signifying only the art of 
treating disease ; for what kind of necessity is there 
for competence in that respect in order to make an 
analysis ? Granting even that the pharmaceutical 
chemist “ knows nothing practically of anatomy, 
physiology or pathology,” what logic is there in the 
inference that he must, therefore, be incompetent to 
make a chemical analysis ? It might even be added 
that in cases of poisoning or accident, knowledge of 
those subjects would not confer any fitness for the 
performance of the special work of deciding whether 
certain parts of an animal body or certain materials 
contained poison or not; and that is really the main 
point to be ascertained by the analyst. It is also 
conceivable that the important aid medical men can 
render in such cases would be more serviceable if it 
were not associated with the strictly chemical work, 
but merely brought to bear on the analytical results 
obtained by an experienced chemist. 
In regard to the Lancet’s remarks upon the mis¬ 
use of the word “ chemist,” we object altogether to 
the insinuation that any “ pretensions ” have been 
founded upon that basis. All that is contended for 
by the Pharmaceutical Society is, that, considering 
the nature of the duties appertaining to the office of 
analyst under the Adulteration Act, they present no 
features which demand the skill of the qualified medi¬ 
cal practitioner, and that in consequence eligibility for 
the office should not be restricted to that class. It 
is also contended that many persons in business as 
druggists—to use the least pretentious term—are 
fully competent both as chemists in the strict sense, 
and as microscopists, as well as by possessing a know¬ 
ledge of medicines, to perform the duties of the office; 
this is, we believe, a modest contention and one 
which we venture to say cannot fairly be disallowed. 
Lastly, we learn from the British Medical 
Journal, that in consequence of the Pharmaceutical 
Society having sent a deputation to the Local 
Government Board, a communication has been ad¬ 
dressed to Mr. Stansfeld by the Chairman of the 
Parliamentary Bills Committee of the British Medi¬ 
cal Association, for the purpose of pointing out to 
him the opinion of that body, that whereas an Act 
of Parliament exists, regulating the examinations 
which certify medical knowledge, subsequent Acts 
requiring medical knowledge should be interpreted 
by that light; and that, for any post which an Act 
of Parliament designates as requiring medical know¬ 
ledge, those persons only should be considered 
eligible who have passed one of the recognized ex¬ 
aminations. This suggestion is very reasonable- 
within the limits of its applicability, but, since in 
regard to it Mr. Stansfeld’s discrimination will no 
doubt enable him to appreciate the fact that the Act 
therein referred to is one appertaining solely to the 
practice of medicine, and having nothing to do 
with the chemical or microscopical qualifications 
essential for a public analyst, we may well leave 
this communication without further comment. 
It is satisfactory to learn from Dr. Letheby’s 
address that he has taken upon liimself as repre¬ 
senting the Association of Medical Officers of 
Health, to urge upon Mr. Stansfeld how important 
it is for the effective working of the Act that the ap¬ 
pointment as analysts of persons having competent- 
medical, microscopical and chemical knowledge,, 
should be strictly carried out. We fully concur 
with him in this opinion, and we feel sure that all 
classes of tradesmen likely to be affected by the Act 
will, on consideration, perceive that it is of vital im¬ 
portance to them that these appointments should be 
efficiently filled up. It is still more satisfactory to 
learn from the same source that Mr. Stansfeld, in 
replying to the suggestions of the Association, has 
intimated that the Local Government Board will 
require satisfactory evidence of the qualifications 
of the appointed analysts. 
As yet we believe the necessary approval of the 
Local Government Board has not been given to any 
of the appointments that have been made ; and for 
the present we can only rely upon the assurance 
given by Mr. Stansfeld that proper attention will 
be given to the question of qualifications. 
Our space does not permit us to deal with some 
other details of the Adulteration Act; but, as pointed 
out by a correspondent, there appears to be in 
some quarters a singular want of appreciation of the 
nature of the work that will be required from ana¬ 
lysts, as evidenced by the proposition that it should 
be paid for by a fee of half-a-crown. It may be ad¬ 
visable hi carrying out the Act that analyses should 
be obtainable by the public for very moderate sums; 
but if such analyses are to be of any value, it is ob¬ 
vious that under such a system the officer conduct¬ 
ing them should, in matter of remuneration, be placed 
on a footing with other municipal officers, and ade¬ 
quately paid for his services out of the public funds,, 
as part of the expense of carrying out this Act. It is 
idle to expect that trustworthy analyses, sometimes 
requiring two or three days, will be conducted by 
skilful analysts unless they have something more to 
look for than a trumpery half-a-crown fee. 
