780 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 25, 1871. 
Clause 16, Pharmacy Act 1868. 
Sir,—If jour interpretation, as I understand it, of clause 16 
of the Pharmacy Act of 1868 is correct, viz., that neither the 
widow nor any other unqualified person can legally continue 
the business of a deceased chemist (even if managed by a 
properly qualified man) except as a trustee, in which case 
it can only be for a limited period, I would ask why the 
Pharmaceutical Council takes no action in the ease of co¬ 
operative stores retailing and dispensing poisons, where 
neither trusteeship nor any other qualification obtains ? 
The case may be put thus, either co-operative stores are 
illegally constituted, or they are not. If they are, then the 
Council is bound to prevent any violation of the Pharmacy 
Act; but if they are not ? then the Pharmacy Act is a mere 
sham, and not worth the paper on which it is printed, since 
any man or woman, or any association of them, or any rela¬ 
tive of a deceased chemist, can keep “ open shop for the retail¬ 
ing and dispensing poisons,” exactly as the co-operative stores 
are now doing, i. e., by employing, as dispenser, a registered 
chemist and druggist. 
It seems to me that clauses 1 and 15, taken in conjunction 
with clause 16, are quite sufficient to prevent any irregular 
associations from practically evading the law, and I think 
the Council ought to put in force the powers intrusted to 
them to this end, or give some valid and sufficient reason for 
permitting what appears to be, not only a gross violation of 
the spirit and letter of the Pharmacy Act, but also very 
damaging to the interests of legally qualified men. 
There can be no doubt but that these societies are, in fact, 
“ open shops kept,” by certain persons not on the register, 
for the “ retailing, dispensing and compounding of poisons,” 
in defiance of the 1st clause of the Act of 1868. 
Torquay, March 21s7, 1871. Edward Smith. 
Dispensing in Surgeries. 
Sir,—The instance quoted by Mr. T. C. Jones (in last 
month’s Journal), of a medical man inducing a boy, by the 
offer of higher salary, to leave.his employer is not a solitary 
one. I experienced the same treatment myself a few months 
since. 
In my case the inexperienced boy was not to take charge 
of a surgery merely. The medical gentleman (although 
the place was well supplied with druggists) was starting a re¬ 
gular drug-shop, for the sale and dispensing of the medicines. 
He has a large out-door practice, and during his necessary 
absence on his professional rounds this mere boy (who had 
been with me some twelve months, running messages and 
occasionally entrusted with the sale of hair oil, logwood and 
some of the rough drugs) is left in charge of the establish¬ 
ment, and, assisted by a youth of even less experience, com¬ 
pounds the patients’ prescriptions, sells patent medicines, and 
dispenses drugs and poisons to the villagers. 
Of course, when a surgeon or doctor keeps open shop his 
patients have no alternative, but must get their medicines 
compounded there, be the assistant competent or incompetent. 
Should a serious mistake ever happen, it will be very difficult 
to prove that it was not “unfavourable symptoms set in.” 
How different would be the position of the regular druggist 
under similar circumstances! 
Cases of the above kind show the absurdity of imposing re¬ 
strictions (“for the safety of the public”) on a portion of 
the drug sellers only. 
A Country Druggist. 
Bathgate, N.B., February loth, 1871. 
An Advertisement. 
Sir,—The fate of a house divided against itself would cer¬ 
tainly fall on chemists, if many of them could advertise as 
follows:— 
E asy instructions forwarded to pre¬ 
pare AN ESSENCE OF SARSAPARILLA for Is. 
pint, equal to that sold at 4s. 6(7. or more. Infallible restorer 
of Broken-down Health and Blood Purifier. Free for 14 
stamps.— Registered Chemist. 
The Council, I presume, has no power to interfere in such 
a case, but it is as well the profession should be made aware 
of this peculiar phase of self-destruction. Avalon. 
Adulteration oe Food, etc., Bill. 
Sir,—As the Bill on the adulteration of food and drugs 
may probably be passed, it will be advisable that the answers 
to the following questions be well known:— 
Who are eligible for election as analysts ? 
What person or persons have the power of appointing 
the analyst ? 
Are the existing analysts known as the “ county ” analysts 
to have the work in this Bill ? 
May not the examined pharmaceutists compete for the 
appointment under the Act ? 
Old Student. 
The Case oe Poisoning at Falmouth. 
Sir,—In your report of “ Suicide by Prussic Acid,” in 
Journal No. 36, date March 4th, Mr. Mitchell is stated to 
have produced his register signed “Isabella Yaughan (alias 
Mary Pitts)” as the purchaser of the poison. It is not stated 
who witnessed her signature. Had the Pharmacy Act been 
complied with in the production of the witness, would the 
fatal results have followed ? Or was the purchaser known to 
the vendor ? 
March 8th, 1871. J. Barker. 
Dispensing. 
Sir,—I was much pleased to read the paper on “ Dispen¬ 
sing” in your last number, and I hope that the subject will 
often be brought into the columns of your valuable Journal. 
It is a most important and essential qualification of every 
young man who is connected with pharmacy. But it docs 
not seem to meet with the attention its importance demands, 
especially in the matter of apprentices. A great many, after 
spending a term of several years with a chemist, seem to 
know comparatively nothing of the practical part of dispen. 
sing, and generally have to gain their knowledge in that 
department from experience in after situations, when they 
are supposed to be practically acquainted with all the 
branches of their business. When I left my first master, and 
went to a situation where dispensing formed a large part of 
the work, I was at a loss in many respects ; and I may say, 
without exaggeration, that I learnt more practical lessons 
that would stand by me in after life during my first six 
months there than I did the whole of my previous term. 
And this is not a solitary case, but many such could be found 
daily, and shows a want of attention in this respect on the 
part of the masters. But it should be a duty incumbent 
on every master to qualify his apprentice as much for prac¬ 
tical dispensing as for the ordinary routine of a chemist’s 
business; and I hope we shall often have a paper or a 
few suggestions from those who are competent to give them,, 
and they will, I am sure, prove of great benefit, especially tO' 
your youthful readers and subscribers. 
Allow me, Sir, in conclusion, to say a few words on the 
almost worn-out “poison” topic. I believe that, to a great 
extent, the restrictions which many wish to put upon us are 
unnecessary and superfluous. After the examinations which 
persons are obliged to pass before they can enter into busi¬ 
ness, which must ensure a practical knowledge of all articles 
they have to deal with, every man would take what precau¬ 
tions he thought necessary for preserving his own reputation 
and the safety of the public. Notwithstanding the stringent 
rules already adopted, you can scarcely take up a paper but 
you read some case of poisoning or of suicide. And is the 
fault the chemists and druggists’? Decidedly not; and no¬ 
thing that the law can do will effectually remove it. If a 
man or woman has really made up his or her mind to get a 
poisonous article they will do so, no matter what burden is 
laid upon the chemist, and nothing in the shape of coercion 
or law will do anything to mitigate the evil. It lies with 
those who wish to procure it; and as long, Sir, as there are 
people who contemplate self-destruction, or the destruction 
of others, so long will the evil last. 
George G. Jeferies. 
51, Old MarJcet Street, Bristol, 
March 21 st, 1871. 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Mr. J. Doubell, Mr. J. L. Roberts, Mr. "W. B. Orton, Mr. 
W. W. Stoddart, Mr. C. B. Allen, Mr. C. R. C. Titchborne, 
Mr. E. Fox, W. H. H., G. W. 
