February 1,19?3.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
Gil 
®jje Ukrmaxmtiral $ounral. 
-«-- 
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1873. 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review,etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street , London , TF. Envelopes indorsed u Pharm. Journ.” 
VERMIN KILLERS. 
The recent prosecutions of cliemists'and druggists 
for tlie sale of vermin killers will, of course, attract 
considerable attention from tlie trade, and conse¬ 
quently it seems desirable to revert to the subject 
here, for the purpose of reiterating the suggestions 
we have previously offered in the interests of the 
trade respecting the sale of these preparations. 
In the first instance, however, we may point out 
that the chief practical difficulty in this matter arises 
from a supposed ambiguity in the terms of the addi¬ 
tions made in December, 1809, to Schedule A of the 
Pharmacy Act, by which vermin killers were com¬ 
prised among the poisons within the meaning of 
the Act. Perhaps it should rather be said that this 
difficulty is due to differences of opinion as to the 
meaning of the provisions respecting “vermin killers.” 
Thus it has been argued that inasmuch as only four 
out of the ten additions to the schedule are specifically 
directed “ to be deemed a poison in the first part of 
the Schedule A,” and since “ vermin killers” are not 
among these four, the sale of vermin killers does not 
involve the precautions required with poisons in the 
first part of Schedule A. 
This argument has been met on the other hand by 
reference to the fact that, among the four additions 
which are to be deemed poisons in the first part of 
the schedule, “ preparations of strychnine” are com¬ 
prised, while preparations of arsenic were origi¬ 
nally included in the first part of the schedule, and 
since certain vermin killers are notoriously prepara¬ 
tions of arsenic or of strychnine, it has consequently 
been urged that they should be dealt with as such in 
the selling of them. 
Then again it is argued that those additions were 
made without a knowledge that “ vermin killers” 
contained or were preparations of arsenic or strych¬ 
nine, but this contention has never been much insisted 
upon, and rightly so, for it would not be compli¬ 
mentary to the framers of the additions. The same 
perhaps may be said of the idea that the term “ pre¬ 
parations” refers only to articles intended for medici¬ 
nal use, for it must be borne in mind that the regula¬ 
tions apply only to the “ sale” of poisons, and not to 
dispensing, or even to storage. 
But individual members of the trade have at times 
endeavoured to maintain that they were under no 
obligation to know that a “ vermin killer” containe 
arsenic or strychnine; that there was no reason why 
they should know this; that they sold these prepara¬ 
tions as “ proprietary articles,” and that for these 
reasons the precautions directed for poisons in the 
first part of the schedule should not be required in 
the sale of “ vermin killers.” Some have even gone 
so far as to urge that in a shop full of customers, the 
time requisite for registering the sale of “ vermin 
killers” could only be given to the detriment of the 
vendor. 
We must confess that we cannot sympathize with 
those who hold these views, nor is it easy to under¬ 
stand the negation of the universal instinct of self¬ 
protection which they seem to involve. Looking at 
the matter merely from this point of view it appears 
inconceivable that the possibility of being charged 
with the infringement of the law should not induce 
greater caution. If the chemist and druggist is not 
under an obligation to know that “ vermin killers 
contain strychnine or arsenic, surely it would be to 
his interest to ascertain. Even the sale of such ar¬ 
ticles as “ proprietary ” does not in any degree 
lessen the need for this, for they are sold without 
the stamp which entitles them /to be regarded (as 
“ patent medicines ”) exempt from the provisions of 
the Pharmacy Act. As regards Battle’s Vermin 
Killer the suggestion of our Warrington corre¬ 
spondent, that the proprietors should, when sending 
it out, mark on the wrapper of each packet the 
quantity of the potent poison it contains, is one 
which in the light of recent fatal cases of poisoning 
by means of this article seems desirable for every 
one dealing in it to adopt, in order to avoid the risk 
of being placed in the same unenviable position as 
Mr. Moses and Mr. Gillett. 
We heartily endorse also the proposal that che¬ 
mists should agree to sell these articles only in such 
a manner as would remunerate them for the trouble 
of registration, and we may add that this course was 
recommended in this Journal last September. The 
public claim to be protected against accidental 
poisoning and from the consequences of the too 
easy obtaining of poison, but they are not so un¬ 
reasonable as to require that protection at the cost 
of chemists and druggists. In regard to this point, 
Mr. Slipper well remarks in his letter that it be¬ 
hoves chemists and druggists to show by their caie- 
ful manner of dealing with poisons that it is a gain 
to the community to have an educated, well regu¬ 
lated body to store and distribute poisonous articles 
when they are required. This is an object much 
more worth securing than exemption from the ne¬ 
cessity of registering sales, which after all, by Mr. 
Slipper’s account, does not seem to be a ^ ery 
troublesome matter. 
Tp judge from some of the statements made at 
the recent°trials relating to this subject there seems 
to be a great deal of misapprehension as to the 
