October 22, 1870.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
339 
of useful information and formula?. I should like to see our 
“ Notes and Queries” answering the same useful ends. 
May I also suggest that the “Queries” and “Answers” 
be both prefixed with a number and the name of the subject 
in large type, and that should the “Queries” remain unan¬ 
swered for two weeks, that the number be again inserted 
under a list called “ Unanswered Queries,” as many con¬ 
tributors would not answer some of the queries, thinking that 
others would be sure to reply to them. And, again, should 
two or three answers, differing in detail, be given to the same 
query, I think that they should be inserted, thus affording a 
choice of replies to the querists. 
Wishing the new feature every success. 
October 17th, 1870. J. Ross Faulkner. 
Poisonous Feeding Bottles. 
Dear Sir,—About nine years since my wife used a feeding- 
bottle, having a glass tube reaching to the bottom, armed 
with a tip of vulcanized india-rubber; in the night she ob¬ 
served an offensive smell from it, and, calling my attention, 
I found the disgusting odour of sulphuretted hydrogen very 
strong. I at once got up and washed it, but not until I had 
used pure chlorine could I get rid of the smell; of course Ave 
did not use the bottle again. In the morning the child’s body 
was inflated and very tense, and w r e have no doubt but that a 
few minutes more use of the bottle would have proved fatal. 
The milk, which was perfectly new, was thus prepared:— 
2 oz. new milk, mixed with 2 drams sugar of milk, dissolved 
in 2 oz. hot water and a very little salt added. 
I presume the sulphur of the vulcanized india-rubber acted 
on the hydrogen of the milk, but whether the process was 
facilitated by the presence of salt or the sugar of milk, I do 
not know. We ever after used the plain old bottle and calves 
teat, fitted with sponge, well washed with hot water every 
time, and the teat taken off and kept in spirit. 
Plyr.-iouth, October 17 th, 1870. F. P. Balkwill. 
Dear Sir,—Your correspondent C. B. N. asks for a little 
information respecting feeding-bottles, in consequence of a 
statement made by Dr. W. L. Emmerson; which statement 
he considers singular, but the truth of which is beyond a 
doubt. If I understand your correspondent correctly, he 
wishes to know what chemical change takes place in the milk, 
which would cause it to become poisonous ? I will endeavour 
simply to explain it to him. The following is the composition 
of milk:— 
Water. 
. 858 
Casein. 
. 68 
Butter. 
. 38 
Sugar with extractive 
. 30 
Salts. 
. 6 
1000 
The casein comes under the head of the nitrogenous food¬ 
stuffs, which compounds are essentially necessary to build up 
the principal tissues of the body, as muscular fibre, nervous 
substance, etc. Now it is well known that the nitrogenous 
compounds are most easily decomposable; and though, as in 
milk, the sugar and salt are sufficient to preserve the nitro¬ 
genous principle, casein, when in the living tissues, they are 
not in sufficient quantity to preserve it when out of the living 
tissues. Casein is under the most favourable circumstances 
for decomposition when allowed to remain for any length of 
time iu an india-rubber tube with warmth applied. Though 
the nitrogenous compounds are so very essential in building 
up the tissues, they are, nevertheless, when decomposed, most 
poisonous. If taken into blood-vessels by the absorbent in 
only small quantities, pyemia, or blood-poisoning, takes place, 
and death in the majority of instances is the result. Can 
these unfortunate circumstances take place through the means 
of feeding-bottles ? I believe they can; and, moreover, I be¬ 
lieve hundreds of children die annually of pyemia, caused 
through the decomposition of casein in the tubes of feeding- 
bottles. I do not for one moment blame the feeding-bottles, 
the blame rests entirely upon those who have the manage¬ 
ment of them; in short, it is for want of cleanliness. I would 
recommend that the tubes be no longer than six inches; that 
the milk which is put in the bottle should always have a little 
salt and sugar added to it; that every time the bottle is used, 
the teat and pipe should be separated, and with the aid of the 
tube-brush well washed out with salt and water; the strength 
of which solution should be a small teaspoonful of salt to one 
pint of water. If these precautions are taken, no one need 
fear blood-poisoning by means of feeding-bottles; and their 
safety will be equal to their use, which is great. 
Thomas Pemberton. 
Birmingham, Oct. 17 th, 1870. 
Pharmacy and Medical Practitioners. 
Sir,—“Reformer,” the Lancet correspondent, appears to 
me to be writing on a subject of which he knows nothing at 
all; and in writing thus only exposes his ignorance to those 
“dignitaries” whom he so contemns. If a doctor of any 
standing at all, he ought to know that an ordinary prescrip¬ 
tion does not easily cost from 2s. 6d. to 3s. Of course, if 
there should be mixture, pills and ointment on one prescrip¬ 
tion, it may easily cost 2s. 6d. or 3s.; but an ordinary pre¬ 
scription contains a mixture only, which would be charged 
Is. 9 d. or 2s. at the most. 
“Reformer” says that “people whose family doctor does 
not supply his own medicines find their drug bill is equal to, 
or even exceeds, their doctor’s bill.” Granted that a chemist 
gets 3s. even for a prescription, we will suppose written by 
“Reformer,” I think that he (“Reformer”) would be some¬ 
thing more than astonished at his patient if he offered him 
only 3s. as his fee; and if a doctor’s practice is among so 
poor a class that he can only get 3s. as his fee, it is very cer¬ 
tain that it is impossible for a chemist to get 2s. 6cZ. or 3s. 
for the medicine. And yet “Reformer” states as a fact that 
the patient’s drug bill equals or exceeds the doctor’s. 
Mr. Mee, in commenting on “ Reformer’s ” letter sa 3 -s, “ It 
seems a most extraordinary fact that a chemist in one part 
of town should charge as much for preparing a prescription 
as a licensed apothecary or medical practitioner should charge 
for both visit and medicine in another.” As Mr. M. is a 
chemist, he ought to know that such is not the case. That a 
chemist at the West-End charges more than one at Highbury 
we can all understand; for a man who pays £300 or £400 
rental cannot be expected to charge the same as one whose 
rent is only £60, and whose general expenses are in the same 
ratio. But I do not think that Mr. M. knows of an instance 
where a surgeon’s fee for visit and medicine is as little as the 
chemist’s charge for medicine only. As Mr. Mee dispenses 
for a surgeon, it is very possible that he speaks feelingly when 
he says, “ We must be friendly with them (the doctors), for they 
are our best friends;” but I fail to see as yet in what way 
they are “ a most generous race.” 
So long as practitioners persist in prescribing medicines in 
such concentrated forms as now appears to be general, they 
must not be surprised if their patients’ bills are rather heavy. 
I have to-day dispensed for a surgeon the following prescrip¬ 
tions :— 
No. 1. 
R. 
Tr. 
Cinchona? Simpl. , 
Ft. 
Mist. Sig. 5j bis 
No. 2. 
R. 
Tr. 
Cinchome Co. Mi) 
Acid. Nitr. dil. My 
Tr. 
Aurantii 5 iy. 
M. ft. Mist. 
Two teaspoonfuls three times a day in a wineglassful of 
water. 
It is a curious, though an undeniable fact, that the surgeon 
who dispenses his own medicine prescribes the most simple 
remedies, and not in a concentrated form. Another grievous 
sore with “ Reformer ” is chemists’ prescribing, and he insinu¬ 
ates that they do harm rather than good. What would he 
say to a doctor who ordered tr. lytta? for a child suffering 
from hooping-cough ? If a chemist ventured to prescribe it 
he would be put down as an ignorant man, to say the least. 
I know, however, a M.R.C.S. who ordered it. So far as my 
experience goes, I think that chemists cure their patients 
sooner than medical men. If doctors would give up dis¬ 
pensing, the chemists would give up prescribing, but not till 
then, I think. 
Bristol. An Assistant. 
Sir,—In noticing the communication of Dr. Leslie, I hope 
that gentleman will do me the justice to remark that I have 
not in any degree reflected upon the position or practice of 
the honourable section to which he belongs, namely, the 
physicians, who are, indeed, our best friends, and whose 
function, although exercised upon a higher level, does not 
conflict with the interests of pharmacists; as for the “ posi- 
