April 15, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
827 
and any one who reads it carefully will see that it was 
intended that medical men were not to he interfered with 
in their capacity as dispensers, if they chose to carry 
on a dispensing trade. He himself had had some communi¬ 
cation with the medical department of the Privy Council, 
in the course of which he showed the position in which the 
Glasgow chemists would be placed, and requested them 
to take steps to put all on an equality; the reply he re¬ 
ceived was to the effect, that if an opportunity occurred 
for such legislation, his suggestion would he taken into 
consideration. He thought if the opportunity were 
given by the Society rejecting the regulations, we should 
hear no more of them, as the medical men who kept open 
shops would object far more strongly than chemists 
against any compulsory enactments. 
Mr. John Jaap, Pharmaceutical Chemist, moved the 
first resolution:—“ That this meeting is opposed to the 
restrictive measures for the sale and keeping of ‘ poisons,’ 
recommended by the Council of the Pharmaceutical So¬ 
ciety (with consent of the medical officers of her Ma¬ 
jesty’s Privy Council) for adoption at the annual meeting 
in May next, as we consider it is highly impolitic to in¬ 
terfere in any way with the conducting of our business 
otherwise than as recommendations; and being convinced 
that the greatest security for the public lies in the edu¬ 
cation of the dispenser, and such education being now 
mot only improved, but made a necessary qualification, is 
to all intents and purposes a guarantee of our ability to 
conduct our business for the public safety.” Mr. Jaap 
said he had nothing to add to the resolution, as it fully 
expressed his opinions on the matter. 
Mr. Daniel Frazer, Pharmaceutical Chemist, in se¬ 
conding the resolution, confessed that he did so with no 
hesitancy, because he held very decided opinions on the 
subject. He, however, thought it necessary that there 
should be means taken by all chemists to distinguish 
poisons which resembled each other in appearance. He 
would go further, and say that the public should have 
some security against accidents happening. But he 
wished to be at liberty to accomplish that object him¬ 
self, as best suited his circumstances, without any undue 
interference on the part of the Privy Council; he also 
wished his brethren in the trade to be on the same foot¬ 
ing, for he could not believe that there were many che¬ 
mists, if any, who would be careless enough to keep 
•morphia, arsenic or tartarized antimony on the same 
rshelf with bicarbonate of soda or powdered sugar. He 
thought that a. separation of such poisonous articles,— 
some on high shelves, others among liquids, and poi¬ 
sonous liquids among solids,—was all that was necessary. 
Mr. Glen (Renfrew), in supporting the motion, said 
ffhe proposed regulations would be gross injustice to them, 
who had already taken steps in the matter, and had en¬ 
deavoured to protect the public and themselves from 
;any injury arising out of accidents with poisonous drugs. 
Mr. Alexander Kinninmont, Pharmaceutical Che¬ 
mist, moved the second resolution as follows:—“That 
this meeting is further opposed to the proposed compul¬ 
sory regulations, as their adoption by the Society in 
their present form will tend to give an undue and invi¬ 
dious advantage to one class of retailers over another,— 
creating, in fact, a body of ‘privileged traders;’ for, 
while the regulations will be binding only on those re¬ 
gistered under the Pharmacy Act, all persons registered 
under the Medical Acts will be exempted, and at liberty 
to act as they think proper,—it being the custom of 
many medical practitioners throughout the country to 
keep open shop and carry on a retail trade in the same 
manner as chemists and druggists, and as especially in 
this city fully two-thirds of the drug retailers are phy¬ 
sicians.” Mr. Kinninmont said he thought there was 
little to add to the resolution. Chemists generally did 
not want to interfere w r ith medical men, even in dispens¬ 
ing, if they dispensed only their own prescriptions; 
'but all felt it to be an anomaly that, in a city such as 
Glasgow, out of 180 retailers of drugs, 120 of those 
belonged to medical practitioners, and that, if the regu¬ 
lations were enforced, those 120 would be at liberty to 
adopt them or not as they liked, while the remaining 60 
would be compelled to do so ; and yet there was, practi¬ 
cally speaking, no difference between their establishments 
and the conducting of their business. He therefore held 
that, if the regulations were to be enforced, they should 
not be applied to one class alone, but to all engaged in 
the dispensing and selling of poisons. 
Mr. D. P. Walker seconded the motion, and said he 
thought it was now time that the dispensing of medi¬ 
cines should be taken out of the hands of the medical 
practitioners altogether, for he thought it was a dis¬ 
grace to a city like Glasgow, that boys of eight or 
twelve years of age, and sometimes girls, were all that 
could be seen at the back of the counters of these 
doctors’ shops from morning till night. He thought that 
the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society had entirely 
mistaken whom the regulations were needed for. It was 
in shops of this description where they were required. 
Mr. Black wished to know whether all who kept 
open shop for the sale of poisons were not equally liable 
to the same restrictions as chemists. 
Mr. Harvie (Airdrie) said he thought he could supply 
the desired information. He had always been of opinion 
that medical men who kept open shop came under the 
poison claus )S of the Pharmacy Act, the same as drug¬ 
gists, wh’ch to all intents and purposes they were, so far 
as the sale of poisons is concerned at least, and he na¬ 
turally thought they should act in the sale of poisons 
the same as they who were professed druggists; but, 
while he held this opinion, a medical man who had a 
shop near him, thought differently, and said he would 
sell as much poison as he could, and would register none 
of it. He (Mr. Harvie) told the doctor that if he per¬ 
sisted in doing so he would make a case of it, while the 
doctor said he was quite agreeable. A party called 
shortly afterwards at his shop for half an ounce of corro¬ 
sive sublimate; he not knowing the person, asked him 
to bring a witness whom he knew; the man said he needed 
no witness and could get it at Dr. So-and-So’s. He (Mr. 
Harvie) advised him not to go there without a witness 
either, or if he did, the consequences might be serious to 
himself; the man paid no attention however, but went 
straight to the doctor's shop to which he followed him, 
and witnessed the doctor weigh the stuff, wrap it up in 
paper and hand over the counter without even a label; ho 
called a policeman at once, gave the man in charge and 
lodged the case with the procurator-fiscal. The fiscal 
wrote to Edinburgh for instructions, and in a day or two 
a reply came from Mr. Kimberly, giving orders not to 
proceed with the case ; it was thus decided in favour of the 
doctor, and he continues to sell poisons without register¬ 
ing them, and, in many cases, not even labelling them. 
Mr. John Currie, Pharmaceutical Chemist, proposed 
the third motion, as follows “ That this meeting being 
convinced that it is impossible to frame a set of rules 
equally suited to the varied requirements of different 
pharmaceutical establishments, and because we feel that 
no restrictions under the authority of the law are likely 
to prove successful, we hereby resolve to give the pro¬ 
posed compulsory regulations our most strenuous opposi¬ 
tion, while we will respectfully consider any well-devised 
scheme, if sent out as a recommendation, and act in ac¬ 
cordance therewith, so far as our circumstances will 
permit.” He said that the best security to the public 
against mistakes from the sale of poisons is, first, the ex¬ 
ercise of sound discretion on the part of the dispenser as 
to whom poisons should be sold to, when not prescribed by 
a physician ; secondly, by the adopting of a uniform rule 
of labelling everything carefully and by affixing on mix¬ 
tures, etc., for internal use and containing ingredients oi 
a dangerous nature in an overdose, a. label, ‘ poisonous 
in an overdose;’ and on liniments, lotions,. embrocations, 
etc., ‘for external use only,’ together with a ‘poison 
label in red ink, if made up of dangerous compounds. 
