January 21,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
599 
*** A To notice can 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 publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Proposed Regulations for Storing of Poisons. 
Sir,—The all-absorbing topic with chemists appears to be 
the storing of poisons, and many of your correspondents write 
with some warmth upon the subject, feeling that their ar¬ 
rangements are being unnecessarily interfered with. Looking 
at the subject from all sides, I think the difficulty might soon 
be got over. No doubt those that are in a smaller way of 
business have comparatively as much convenience for storing 
as those who keep laudanum, arsenic, etc., in large quanti¬ 
ties. The subject will be again brought forward, and tho¬ 
roughly discussed at the General Meeting. It is very na¬ 
tural that a superior body of men should look with a deal of 
jealousy at being forced into anything; but it must not be 
forgotten that the Pharmaceutical Council are under an obli¬ 
gation to the Privy Council, consequent on the passing of the 
recent Pharmacy Act, to make some arrangements for the 
safe keeping and storing of poisons. Not that they think 
our body careless, but that the general public should know, 
as a rule, every precaution is taken to prevent accidental 
poisoning or otherwise. The Council have the matter left to 
them in a measure, and have invited opinions and discussion 
from the whole body of chemists, and have postponed the 
subject for a considerable time. I think it would be a great 
pity if, when the Privy Council call upon the Pharmaceutical 
Council for their plan, they had to say that the chemists, as a 
body, could agree to no plan. It then might be taken from their 
hands to those that did not know our requirements so well, 
and some regulations adopted which we might find rather 
troublesome of application. I think I may say, during my 
short experience, I recognize our body merging into a more 
homogeneous mass, and our opinions and feelings getting 
more in unison, and that our trade prices and seemingly 
troublesome poison regulations will disappear by being tho¬ 
roughly discussed and ventilated. 
W. Donaldson Boon. 
King's Dynn, January 16th, 1871. 
Sir,—May I be permitted to supplement the various sug¬ 
gestions for distinguishing poisonous articles by adding 
another? viz., that such things should be put into bottles 
rendered opaque, and that the labels should be hidden from 
view by a covering which must be lifted to enable the seeker 
to find the article; thus he would be compelled to read the 
label before using the substance, and a mistake would, under 
such circumstances, be highly blameable. All drawers, casks, 
boxes and parcels may be easily included in this system. 
January 14 th, 1871. Rus. 
Sir,—In speaking of the above, I think some little regard 
•ought, to be paid to the feelings of others. In M. P. S.’s 
letter in your Journal of the 14th he is (I should hope) un¬ 
thinkingly stirring up old grievances, which must indeed be 
most painful, both to Messrs. Oldham and the unfortunate 
"“assistant” (in Mr. Guinness’s case). Surely they have both 
suffered enough from their own feelings, without being again 
.reminded of their misfortune through the medium of the only 
.paper that has a circulation amongst nearly all the chemists 
in Great Britain and many abroad. Remarks might, I 
think, have been made just as striking without speaking of 
.past and nearly forgotten misfortunes. 
I am in no way connected with “ Messrs. Oldham ” or the 
“assistant,” but have a little feeling for them. 31. P. S. 
also remarks that “apprentices” and “porters” are, as a 
rule, uneducated. Now I think most of your readers will 
agree with me that the former are, as a rule, well educated, 
and the latter are, in many instances, better up in chemistry 
than many of those who are in a better position in the trade 
(this I know.from experience), therefore they are competent 
•to handle poisons. Fair Play. 
Brighton, January Vjth, 1870. 
Pharmaceutical Ethics. 
Sir,'—I have read with much satisfaction your leading 
article of last Saturday on “ Dispensing Charges and Al¬ 
liances,” and with your permission I will briefly express my 
views on the two matters therein discussed. 
1 st. Dispensing Charges. —That the average charge for 
dispensing is. too low, I confidently assert, when we consider 
the pre-requisite education of a qualified dispenser, to which 
must be added the care, responsibility and the inevitable 
anxiety involved in our calling. 
Further, there has, under the strain of competition, been a 
growing tendency during the last few years to reduce still 
lower these charges. 
Unhappily, there are men'kimongst us possessing not an 
atom of that esprit de corps so essential to maintain and ad¬ 
vance the respectability of pharmacy; willing to transact 
business on any terms, and sell at any prices, so long as the 
barest modicum of profits has been secured. The right course 
for wiser and better men to adopt towards such is simply to 
ignore them, but, unfortunately, the necessary courage so 
to do does not always exist,—the result is a depreciation of 
prices all round. 
The plan I would advise my brother pharmaceutists to 
pursue is simply to fix their own scale of charges at what 
they deem an honourable range, and steadily hold_ thereto, 
through evil and through good report. 
I am convinced that any attempt to bind by any local re¬ 
strictive regulations the black sheep amongst us would be 
utterly useless. I would, however, suggest the possibility of 
a modified course of action being feasible, namely, that the 
pharmaceutists of any city or town anxious to advance the 
status of their business might most advantageously meet now 
and then for conference on trade questions, and thus agree to 
adopt, as far as practicable, a uniform standard of prices. 
Even here some degree of latitude must be accorded to the 
varying circumstances of different localities. An East End 
chemist may be actuated by as pure and laudable principles as 
his West End brother, and yet find Belgravian prices will 
not acclimatize amongst his supporters; the parallel holds 
true in many a large provincial tow r n. 
The true solution of this difficulty is the oue indicated in 
your article,—a higher but elastic scale of charges. 
2nd. Alliances. —Whilst the former question affects two 
parties—the general public and ourselves, this affects also the 
medical profession. 
These alliances may be broadly divided into two classes; 
the one demands and deserves unmitigated condemnation; I 
refer to the arrangement between a medical man and a par¬ 
ticular chemist, by which, for a consideration, the prescrip¬ 
tions of the former invariably find their way to the establish¬ 
ment of the latter. 
With regard to dispensing for medical men, the course of 
action is not so clearly defined, although I heartily accept the 
gist of your remarks. 
Nothing can be more heart-breaking than the scale of re¬ 
muneration (?) for dispensing between some chemists and 
their professional patrons, and where this work has been done 
by a competently trained and adequately paid staff, that it is 
unremunerative labour there can be no doubt. 
Why, Sir, I have known a man as worthy and assiduous 
in his business as any man I ever knew, giving a surgeon 
credit for a four years’ dispensing at a scale of charges that 
completely reversed the conditions of obligation, and yet such 
were the circumstances of the case, whilst wanting the money 
he was afraid to ask for it. 
A clearer mutual recognition of the ground respectively 
occupied by the profession and pharmaceutists would lead to 
a better understanding of each other. The former should be 
paid for professional service only, the latter for physic. 
If medical men really desire to see pharmacy advance its 
status without encroaching on professional ground, such a 
line of action would greatly facilitate it. 
Hoping this expression of opinion may tend to elicit fuller 
discussion of such vital questions. 
Salisbury, Jan. llUi, 1871. S. R. Atkins. 
Sir,—I have read with considerable interest the article in 
last week’s Journal on “Dispensing Charges and Alliances,” 
and quite agree with you that perfect uniformity of prices for 
dispensing is neither practicable nor desirable. 
On the second point referred to, viz. “ Alliances,” I will, 
with your permission, offer a few remarks; and, as I have 
