March 18,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
751 
C|e |llj;tnu;ttcutita( Journal. 
-♦- 
SATURDAY, MARCH: 18, 1S71. 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs 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, TF . C . 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, 7U. Envelopes indorsed “ Bharm. Journ 
BUSINESS. 
Business lias been defined as “ tlie art of transfer¬ 
ring money from other people’s pockets to one’s own,” 
and in these days of “free” trade there is much reason 
for regarding the definition as very generally apt and 
truthful; but it is at the same time obvious that the 
principle it involves necessitates some limitation in 
the exercise of the art. Without attempting to de¬ 
fine precisely the limits of legitimacy, it is easy to 
perceive in certain forms of business various degrees 
of shadiness that show they are very near those 
limits, if they are not outside them. 
We have been led to these remarks by two circum¬ 
stances that have quite recently come under our 
notice. The first is a very singular advertisement 
appearing in some of the daily papers headed “ ex¬ 
traction of silver from sea-water,” and announcing 
that the advertiser requires twenty subscribers of 
<£10 each, to enable him to carry out his invention 
for that purpose. In return he proposes to give each 
subscriber “ a free licence to use his patent for forty 
years or life,” and for an additional <£25 to provide 
him with an instrument “ of limited dimensions,” to 
which silver is to adhere on passing it through the 
sea-water. It is added that an ordinary seaman can 
work the apparatus without being able in any way 
to deceive the proprietor, also that “ not more than 
one subscription will be given to one person, and not 
more than twenty will be taken-.” 
We are unable to say what has been the result of 
tills remarkable “ silver-extracting enterprise,” and 
therefore we can only leave our readers to speculate 
on tliis point as they may feel inclined. 
The other illustration of modern business to which 
we have referred, is afforded by out contemporary 
the Chemist and Druggist. It will be remembered 
that in January last an editorial article appeared in 
that journal on the vexed subject of poison regula¬ 
tions, which we do not hesitate to say excited con¬ 
siderable astonishment, and in certain quarters the 
most poignant horror. For our own part we must 
confess to having been amazed to see our contem¬ 
porary assuring its esteemed friends that although 
feeling its position acutely there was no help for it— 
that although believing from its antecedents that its 
place is most properly in opposition, and while trying 
always to be on the right side, it could, in the matter 
of Poison Regulations, only advocate the same views 
as those enunciated by the majority of the Council, 
and denounce the opposition to them as weak, the 
sentiment on which it was based as an error, the 
objections as illogical, irrelevant or absurd. 
We have never yet been able to decide, in our own 
mind, how far Christmas festivities were to be held 
responsible for that article; but in any case the suc¬ 
ceeding number bore evidence that he had seen the 
error of his way—the process of conversion had 
evidently set in, and awakening penitence was in¬ 
dicated by an article ridiculing the circular issued 
by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society. This 
month, to judge from the symptoms manifested, we 
may assume that a “state of grace” has been at¬ 
tained, and we cannot illustrate this better than 
by the following juxtaposition of an extract from 
the article of January with one from a circular just 
issued by our contemporary:— 
January 14 th. 
“ To state the case thus— 
and we have endeavoured to 
state it fairly—seems to us 
sufficient to prove the weak¬ 
ness of the opposition. The 
sentiment on which the re¬ 
sistance is based, which is a 
conception that the Council 
is arrogating- to itself tyran¬ 
nical powers, is simply an 
error. The Council sug¬ 
gest these regulations, and 
asks the trade—shall they 
be enacted or not ? Grant¬ 
ing that, neither the second, 
third, nor fourth objection 
which we have mentioned is 
logical; that the best drug¬ 
gists already adopt some 
such plan, surely argues its 
wisdom ; whether the risk 
of accidental poisoning by 
the druggists would be 
diminished at all is the 
point, not whether it would 
be removed altogether; and 
the final argument that 
doctors would not be sub¬ 
ject to these regulations, is 
unanswerable, purely for 
the reason that it is quite 
beside the question.” 
But it will be asked, wliat lias this to do with 
tlie subject of this article ? To answer this question, 
we must refer to another document issued by our 
contemporary, together with the circular above men¬ 
tioned,—not generally, however, but only to a select 
portion of the trade,—the non-subscribers to the Che¬ 
mist and Druggist. In this supplementary manifesto- 
the virtues of our contemporary are modestly narrated, 
and a cordial invitation given to come within the fold. 
Light now falls on the affair. Since January, 
our contemporary had not only been converted, but, 
looking down from a dangerous eminence,—like that 
March. 
“ We say that the Council 
of the Pharmaceutical So¬ 
ciety, by its action in this 
matter, has shown itself un¬ 
worthy to occupy the posi¬ 
tion which has been dele¬ 
gated to it, because unable 
to appreciate the broad 
view of the responsibilities 
and duties which now be¬ 
long to that position, and 
which could not be attached 
to it when the Council was 
merely the governing body 
of a private society.” 
