-January 25, 1873.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
599 
Cffmspttott. 
*** No notice cm be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publicat ion, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Vermin Killers. 
Sir,—It has been my intention for some time to write a 
'few words in reference to the sale of poisons, especially 
'■vermin killers, but I have deferred in hopes that some abler 
person would take the subject in hand. To every chemist 
'throughout the kingdom it is a subject of the highest con¬ 
sideration. That it is not thoroughly understood is, I think, 
■evident from the cases that are constantly appearing in the 
Journal. The question, then, naturally arises, “ Who is to 
blame that it is not better understood ?” With all due defer- 
tence to the Pharmaceutical Society, I think a little more 
might be done by them to render the law rather more intel¬ 
ligible than it is at present. 
I will take my own case as a sample. In August of last 
year I sold a woman two packets of Battle’s Vermin Killer 
'labelled with my name and address and the word “ Poison.” 
She took one herself and gave the other to her child. The 
child died, but she recovered, and was committed for wilful 
murder. Of course, I had to attend the inquest (two days), 
.and the Assizes (three days), and employed a solicitor to 
show that I had done what I deemed necessary. To the 
best of my knowledge I had done everything that the 17th 
■'Section of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, required of me. I took 
a list of the poisons to the inquest to point out that the last 
name on the list in part II. was “Vermin killers, and all 
.poisons sold for the destruction of vermin.” But I was told 
■by the coroner that it contained strychnine, and, doing so, 
I should have had a witness to the sale. I came away with 
the idea that I was in the right, and, at some little trouble 
to myself, inquired of a many chemists, and found that they 
were all of the same opinion. Imagine my astonishment 
when the case appeared in the Journal, with a note appended 
((August 3rd, 1872), stating that I cvas in the wrong, and that 
a list appeared in the London Gazette, December 21st, 1869, 
of articles that ought to be deemed poisons, in the first part 
of schedule A to the said Pharmacy Act, 1868, which list 
• contained, among other articles, “ Vermin Killers, etc.” Now, 
I simply ask, “ Would it not have been better to have sent a 
notice to the trade, instead of publishing it in the London 
Gazette ?” for what percentage of chemists would see it 
in such a paper ? but had a notice been sent to the trade, 
much trouble and uncertainty might have been saved. In 
your leading article on Saturday last you say, “ that it was 
recently resolved that a copy of the revised regulations should 
•be issued to every chemist and druggist, and that it appears 
to be one of those copies which the defendant had received 
that morning ?” May I ask how it is that I have not received 
any such notice? You also say how desirable it is that che¬ 
mists should comply with the conditions prescribed for regu¬ 
lating the sale of poisons in the Pharmacy Act, 1868. But I 
contend that, if we are kept in ignorance of alterations, we 
certainly are not blameable; for how can we comply with 
•the law if we do not know what the law is ? and who are more 
likely to tell us than the Pharmaceutical Society, who have 
the framing of them ? I consider it an injustice to us all that 
it is not made known when any alterations take place in 
■those Acts which so materially affect us. Had notice been 
sent out earlier, in all probability Messrs. Gillett and Moses 
would have been on the safe side, and registered the articles. 
There cannot be two opinions upon the point that the greatest 
confusion exists upon the question, which is a disgrace to 
those who have to administer the law, and an injustice to 
those who fall under its lash. Why, then, cannot we have 
.-something decisive done in the matter ? Month after month 
passes away, case after case appears, the Journal has teemed 
■with letters, but still there remains an uncertainty as to what 
is right to do in the matter. Something appears to have 
■been done as far as the two cases are concerned mentioned 
last week, for the defendants say they had received notice 
that morning, but it has not extended as far as Leeds I think, 
for I have not heard of any one receiving such circular, and 
certainly I have not received one. In a letter, about twelve 
months ago, 1 proposed that a copy of the amended regula¬ 
tions and conditions be forwarded to every chemist in the 
kingdom, and the Society, at the same time, said that they 
had suggested it a few months before; but I think noev that 
it really should be done, not only to chemists, but to every 
coroner and magistrate in the kingdom. If any abler person 
would propose some plan whereby to throw a light on the 
matter, I am sure he would receive the thanks of the greater 
part of the chemists throughout the country. If the law was 
better understood I feel convinced it would be better carried 
out, for, in the case of vermin killers, there can be no induce¬ 
ment to break it, and in the majority of cases it is broken 
in ignorance. 
John Wm. Longley. 
Leeds. 
Lancet Amenities. 
Sir,—I think it is quite time that not only protestation 
against such statements as have lately appeared in sundry 
journals should be made, but also a correct representation 
of the actual condition of the pharmacist compared with that 
of the medical profession, a representative journal of the 
latter having deemed it policy, sound or otherwise, to take up 
the hue and cry, originating from a source of lamentable 
ignorance. However, it must not be assumed, from the fact 
of a certain member of the medical profession hiving made 
an assault on pharmacists, and been ungallant enough to 
attack the ladies, and having ignominiously incited the public 
“ to put down the pretensions of this class,” that such con¬ 
duct is endorsed by the medical profession generally. 
It is an old adage that chemists make enormous profits, and 
that their chief article of commerce is the indispensable 
(though dispensed with every day) aqua pura, but, as your 
correspondent T. C. avers, such a state of affairs is not 
rampant in the present day; and if it were, it would not be 
unfair, considering the qualifications demanded by the public 
and enforce d.by law, and theexpemei to be incurred in their 
attainment before a perton can enter the business. But I 
am quite prepared to refute the statements made respecting 
the voluptuousness of the pharmacist, and I may safely state 
that where one man can afford a sealskin jacket tor his wife, 
ninety-nine scarcely know how to get their bread and cheese. 
The following style of prescribing is too fashionable to admit 
of any very large margin for profi r , and the patients having 
got their advice cheap, think when they have to pay more for 
their medicine that there is something wrong:— 
It. Tinct. Cinchona) Co. 
Sp. Ammoniae Aromat. a a 5j* 
Potassii Iodidi 5j- 
Sig. coeh. min. j. bis in die ex aqua. 
This is a very fair specimen, and hundreds of a more" ex¬ 
pensive nature aud less profitable could be exhibited. The 
public also have acquired a habit of inquiring the cost of 
dispensing a certain prescription at various shops, and when 
they find a man—perhaps one of thorn surgeons with an open 
retail—who will do it txjeedingly cheap, or possibly one who 
is glad to take the bare cost of the drugs in return for the 
Bake of a customer, they are satisfied with their bargain ; but, 
at the same time, think the man a swindler who demanded 
a reasonable profit for skilled labour and guaranteed drugs, 
and vow never to go near his shop again. 
With regard to enormous profits, what does the note paper, 
ink, etc., used by the physician to write his prescription cost ? 
or what does the actual operation of the surgeon cost? 
literally nothing; then what is it they charge so excessively 
for ? They have no capital which they are obliged to invest 
in stock and to keep renewed to supply the wants of the 
public, nor does it cost them more when they are called out 
than it does when the patients go to them, and yet they 
charge more, if it is only across the way. If this question 
can be answe red satisfactorily, our case is stronger, fi r besides 
incurring the precious outlay for qualification, we have to 
find capital afterwards, to invest in and keep the business 
floating. 
One of the “Hornets” from the Nest Attacked. 
Prices: A Problem for the ‘Globe.’ 
Sir,—Having occasion to doubt the value, as charged, of 
two picture frames sent to me from a distance, i was reduced 
to the unpleasant alternative, much against my inclination, 
of inquiring the price of similar frames at various establish¬ 
ments from St. Paul’s Churchyard to the Marble Arch. The 
following is the result, stating the localities near which the 
inquiries wore made:— 
