April 1,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
791 
®Ije Jpjwnuttcufhl J’ounwL 
SATURDAY, APRIL 1, 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, JF.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, IF. Envelopes indorsed “ Bharm. Jo urn." 
MR. MUNTZ’S ADULTERATION BILL. 
Mr. Muntz’s Adulteration Bill lias now been read 
a second time, and the discussion on its merits is to 
take place when the Bill goes into Committee. The 
provisions of the Bill are probably known to our 
readers, as it was published in a recent number of 
this Journal. It will be remembered that Mr. 
Muntz intends to deal with the adulteration of food, 
drink and drugs, and proposes to incorporate in his 
Bill the Adulteration Act of 1800, and those portions 
of the Pharmacy Act of 1868 which deal with the adul¬ 
teration of drugs. The question of the adulteration 
of food and drink will, doubtless, be discussed in the 
columns of other periodicals directly interested in 
the subject; we, therefore, intend to remark more 
particularly on the regulations for suppressing the 
sophistication of drugs and the nature of the penal¬ 
ties to be enforced for infringements of the law. 
In the Bill are recognized two classes of offenders, 
namely, those who wilfully admix or who cause to 
be admixed any ingredient or material with any 
drug to adulterate the same for sale, and those who 
sell any drug which is adulterated or not pure. The 
first class of offenders are for a first offence liable to 
a penalty not exceeding £50, and for a second to be 
imprisoned for not more than six months with hard 
labour. The penalty for a first offence in the second 
class is a fine not exceeding .£20, and for a second 
offence, in addition to the fine, the justices may cause 
the offender’s name, address and offence to be pub¬ 
lished in tiie newspapers. 
The provisions of this Bill are certainly not founded 
on simple justice, for while the adulterator or seller 
of food or drink cannot be convicted, unless it be 
proved that he is aware of the adulteration, the 
vendor of drugs has no such leniency extended to 
him, as in his case the onus of proof that he had no 
knowledge of the adulteration rests not with the 
plaintiff but with the defendant. Why there should 
be tills difference is not for us to say, and probably 
the framers of the Bill could not give a very satisfac¬ 
tory reply to the question, but we think no distinc¬ 
tion ought to be made between such offences, as they 
are all equally bad, and consequently deserve a like 
punishment. 
It is hoped that when the clauses in the Bill are 
discussed, attention will be drawn to the fact that by 
far the greater portion of the drugs used in this 
country are imported, and that to check adulteration 
at its source, it is certainly the duty of the pro¬ 
moters of the Bill to take steps to prohibit the im¬ 
portation of all adulterated drugs, and thus give fa¬ 
cilities to those dealing in drugs to comply with the 
law. We hope that this will be insisted on by those 
anxious to deal justice all round, and it is the more 
necessary that this all-important tiling should be 
done, because very many druggists have neither the 
appliances nor the skill to test the genuineness of 
the drugs they purchase. It will, doubtless, be said 
that the examination of drugs on importation would 
cause a great deal of labour and much inconvenience ; 
we are aware it would, but in America the machinery 
has been devised for such a purpose, and, doubtless, 
such a thing could be performed equally well in 
this country. However, of this we are certain, that 
if adulterated drugs are allowed to be imported with¬ 
out hindrance, and Mr. Muntz’s Bill becomes law, 
it will require only a few convictions either to make 
the law a dead-letter, or to cause the chemists and 
druggists of the United Kingdom to take a proper 
view of their position, when their numbers and in¬ 
fluence will certainly cause the legislature to pay 
respect to and redress their grievances. 
We are by no means advocates of adulteration, 
but would gladly do all in our power to assist in its 
suppression; at the same time it is our duty to point 
out one of the gravest defects of the Adulteration 
Bill now before the House of Commons, and we are 
sure that if this defect be not remedied the Bill will 
in practice be found unworkable. 
PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS, 
Among the proposals for legislation affecting the 
practice of pharmacy on the American continent now 
under discussion is one that has been prepared by 
the pharmacists of Chicago. The Board of Health 
of that city having made an attempt to limit the sale 
of poisons and regulate the dispensing of medicines, 
failed from not having the necessary powers. Con¬ 
sequently the draft of a proposed law for regulating, 
the practice of pharmacy and the sale of poisons in 
the State of Illinois has been drawn up, and is now 
before the State Legislature for adoption. Its prin¬ 
cipal provisions are— 
That on and after the 1st of August, 1871, it shall 
be unlawful for any but a registered pharmacist or a 
registered assistant in his employ, or an aid or ap¬ 
prentice under the immediate supervision of a regis¬ 
tered pharmacist or assistant, to retail, compound 
or dispense medicines or poisons. 
The persons entitled to registration under the Bill 
would be (1) “ graduates in pharmacy,” who have had 
four years’ experience in a store where the prescrip¬ 
tions of medical practitioners are compounded and 
