85 S 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[April 22, 1871. 
Flavour of Celery. 
Take of Celery Seed, bruised, 4 oz. troy 
Diluted Alcohol 16 fl. oz. 
Digest for eight or ten days and filter. 
Flavour of Cinnamon. 
Take of Ceylon Cinnamon, brused, 2 ox. troy 
Oil of Cinnamon ^ fl. drm. 
Diluted Alcohol 16 fl. oz. 
Digest for fourteen days and filter. 
Flavour of Cloves. 
Take of Cloves, bruised, 1 oz. troy 
Oil of Cloves 2 fl. drms. 
Diluted Alcohol 16 fl. oz. 
Digest for eight or ten days and filter. 
[225.]—CONCENTRATED INFUSIONS.— G. 31. would 
be glad to receive information as to the best method of pre¬ 
paring concentrated infusions which will keep. 
[*#* 4Yc think the best way is to avoid concentrated prepa¬ 
rations, and use fresh infusions. These may be prepared in a 
very short time. See a paper by Mr. Barnes on the subject, 
ante, p. 368, and another by Mr. Allchin, ante, pp. 421, 481. 
—Ed. Pharm. Journ.] 
[226.]— COD-LIVER OIL JELLY.— C. F. L. AT. would 
be obliged if any one would favour him with particulars of 
the manipulation for the formula which appeared in the 
Journal for April 8 [210]. The ingredients and proportion 
were named, but not the way of mixing. He has tried it 
several ways, but failed to make anything like an elegant 
preparation.—A. P. S. 
[227.]—PREPARATION OF POMADES.—I should be 
glad if any reader could inform me of a remedy for prevent¬ 
ing the steamed appearance on the sides of pomade bottles 
after they are filled and the pomade becomes cold. I have 
tried warming the bottles, and deferred putting the pomade 
into the bottles until almost solid, but with no better result. 
—“Moelline.” 
[228.]—SYRUPUS TONIC US.—" fou will oblige by saying 
in next publication of your Journal what should be dispensed 
for syrupus tonicus in a prescription (a Manchester prescrip¬ 
tion).—! 1 . P. B. 
[229.]—STRAINERS.—What is the best straining ma¬ 
terial for the dispensing counter— toiv excepted ?—J. AY. 
[230.]—SILVERING FOR PILLS.—What is the best 
substitute for mucilage of gum arabic in silvering pills ?— 
J. W. 
[231.]—BEETLE POWDER.—Can any reader oblige me 
with a good formula?—“ Give and Take.” 
[232.]—LIQUID DENTIFRICE.—I should be obliged 
by a formula which is effectual and agreeable.—T ooth. 
[233.]-—PLATE POWDER for polishing brass, silver, 
etc. Will be obliged for a good recipe.—G. H. 
[234.]—A PROBLEM FROM DOVER.—What should 
be the colour and consistence of this medicine, and in what 
order should the ingredients be mixed ? The person who 
brought the prescription said he never had it made up twice 
consecutively the same colour. 
-n t • ^ . . A Co M- 
Av. Liq. Quimce Ammon, ^iss 
Syr. Ferri Phosph. yj 
Ferri Ammon. Citr. ^j 
Acid. Phosph. Dil. 5iss 
Aquas Menth. Pip. 5ii s s 
Ammon. Phospliat .'md 
M. ft. mistura.—A. B. 
[235.] MINERAL OILS.—Would any scientific reader 
tell me to uliat is attributable the peculiar “bloom” so cha¬ 
racteristic ot refined mineral oils, and inform me if there is 
any process by which this may be got rid of? The “ bloom ” 
much resembles that of quinine in solution.—A. P. B. 
[*#* The character referred to is an instance of fluorescence 
similar to that familiar to pharmacists in a solution of quinine. 
See an article by Professor Fliickigcr, ante, p. 682. — Ed. 
Fharm. Journ.] 
ferajwnictttc. 
*** No notice can be tahen 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. 
Has Public Opinion, as indicated by the Press, 
DEMANDED COMPULSORY REGULATIONS FOR THE STOR¬ 
ING, etc. of Poisons? 
Sir,—I beg to hand you the enclosed correspondence. 
So lately as March 31st, Mr. Dymond reiterated in a public 
meeting the argument in favour of accepting the compulsory 
regulations, “ that the press demanded it, and they knew 
that the public ajiproved it.” 
In a parenthesis, Mr. Dymond is reported to liafe thrown 
in a contradiction of something which he wrongly assumed 
I had said, and he attempts to thrust forward this side issue 
as a shield against my demand for the proofs of his own 
assertion. 
I am not aware that any public interest cr advantage 
would result from my complying with Mr. Dymond’s request 
to make a particular statement, in order that he may dis¬ 
prove it. But, on the other hand, I recognize great import¬ 
ance in the main issue between us, and I now publicly ask 
Mr. Dymond to tell us how many of the “ 3370 newspapers 
and periodicals ” he can put forward to support his asser¬ 
tion ? 
I forbear to allude to other aspects of the general question, 
beyond expressing the hope that the sound common sense of 
the trade, which has averted the immediate danger of com¬ 
pulsion, will closely scrutinize the alternative scheme to be 
offered. To be led into the approval and recommendation of 
any system which closely resembled the original one would 
be an illogical act, not unlikely to bring speedy punishment 
by the compulsory enactment of the measures which we had 
declared to be desirable, and had recommended for adoption. 
31orecambs, April 17th, 1871. Rich. Reynolds. 
(No. 1.) 
t: April 8 , 1871. 
“ My dear Mr. Dymond,— I notice in the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Journal of to-day, that at a meeting held in Bir¬ 
mingham you referred to me in the following words, viz., 
e Mr. Reynolds was quite mistaken when he declared that 
only two papers had spoken on the subject ’ (that of regulat¬ 
ing the storing, etc. of poisons). 
“After this public statement of my being ‘ quite mistaken/ 
I must ask you to give the evidence requisite to support it, 
viz. the names and dates of the papers other than the Lancet 
and Pall 3Iall Gazette, and what they said in favour of the- 
regulations. 
“ I will consider your reply as being public, and am, faith¬ 
fully yours, 
“Richd. Reynolds.” 
(No. 2.) 
“ April 11,1871. 
“My dear Mr. Reynolds,—Owing to my absence from, 
home, your letter has not come into my possession until this 
afternoon. 
“I cannot recognize your demand that I should prove a 
statement of my own, until I have an assurance from you 
that you are prepared to prove the truth of the inference of 
yours which is opposed to it. In your letter of Feb. 14 
(Pharm. Journ., Feb. 18), you draw the conclusion that 
because the Pharmaceutical Journal had not repro¬ 
duced articles on the suggested poison regulations from more 
than two papers, therefore no more than two papers had con¬ 
tained articles on the subject. Such a statement would have 
been amusing from its simplicity, if an absurd inference had 
not been drawn from it which was intended to damage the 
Council, of which you are a member, and you now ask me to 
disprove your remark! 
“There are, as you doubtless know, about 3370 news¬ 
papers and periodical publications of various kinds uncon¬ 
nected with the drug trade, making about 180,000 appear¬ 
ances in the course of the year. If you will first plainly 
assert, and be prepared to prove, that from the date of tbe- 
publication of the suggested poison regulations (Jan. 1, 1870)' 
to the date of your statement (Feb. 14, 1871) no more than. 
