February 3,1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
G31 
%\t |1jm'iit;ttcufk;tl Journal. 
-♦-- 
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1S72. 
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 , JF. Envelopes indorsed u Pharm. Journ.” 
LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION AGAINST POISONING. 
Though we are lotli to do anything calculated to 
revive a dispute which we hope has been irrevocably 
numbered with things that are passed away, we can¬ 
not refrain from recording here the opinion recently 
expressed by a leading medical contemporary in 
reference to the Brighton poisoning case. After 
‘ reviewing the facts of that case, so far as they bear 
upon the question as to the sufficiency of the barriers 
placed by the law between an intending murderer 
and the poison by which the design is to be effected, 
the conclusion is arrived at that “ no law, however 
stringent, can absolutely thwart a murderer ; ” and 
as the result of this the “ sense of personal respon¬ 
sibility” is adopted as the really effectual safe¬ 
guard, which no compliance with the requirements 
of the Poison Act can replace. This argument is 
by no means a new one; but we confess to some 
surprise at seeing it put forward emphatically by a 
journal which we have always regarded as a warm 
advocate of more vigorous legislative regulations on 
the subject of poisons, and we doubt not many will 
feel moved to congratulate our influential contem¬ 
porary on the change of opinion now manifest. 
In discussing the Brighton case it is admitted that 
the provisions of the Pharmacy Act were complied 
with, and that their failure to afford protection was 
due to the cunning of the criminal; but strange to 
say we have in the very same breath a confession of 
faith which reads almost like an involuntary con¬ 
demnation of legislative protection, inasmuch as the 
obtaining of strychnine, avowedly in accordance with 
the law, is spoken of as “ a thing which we had hoped 
would have been rendered impossible by the Sale of 
Poisons Act of 1808.” The italics are our own; 
and we think the sentence reveals such an astound¬ 
ing state of mind on the part of the writer as to de¬ 
serve such prominence. 
Lamentably consistent with the above is the notion 
put forward by Mr. Garrett in commenting on the 
article from which the foregoing extracts have been 
taken, to the effect that it is desirable there should 
be a mitigation of the “ responsibility resting upon 
druggists for the sale of poisons to careless persons 
or for criminal purposes.” We cannot imagine any 
opinion on the subject of poisons more unfounded 
than this or more inconsistent with the true interests 
of the pharmacist. No doubt his responsibility is 
immense, but it is not by reducing it that he is to be 
benefited, and least of all can he seek such mitiga¬ 
tion at the hands of either the press or the public. 
We sincerely sympathize with Mr. Garrett, in so 
far as he was the victim of deception, but we cannot 
object to the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Parry, that he 
was easily deceived, and we feel sure, from the 
general tenor of his letter in the Times, he will 
in future be more chary in supplying potent poisons, 
even in conformity with Act of Parliament. 
But while we deprecate any mitigation of re¬ 
sponsibility on the part of those who sell poison, we 
must equally deprecate the unjust censures from 
time to time passed on those who have strictly con¬ 
formed with the law. On several occasions we have 
called attention to such cases in which it was ap¬ 
parent that ignorance of the provisions of the Phar¬ 
macy Act was the only basis for reprimands ema¬ 
nating from magistrates, coroners, and juries. That 
such a tiling should be continued is a disgrace to the 
administration of the law no less than an injustice 
to those who suffer under it. In regard to this point 
we direct attention to a letter from Leeds, at p. 039,. 
and we also take this opportunity of acknowledging 
the suggestion of a correspondent that a copy of the 
lbegulations and Conditions to be observed under 
the Pharmacy Act should be sent to every coroner 
and magistrate in the country, a suggestion we have 
already made some months ago.* 
PHARMACEUTICAL AFFAIRS IN AMERICA. 
The dissatisfaction that we mentioned some weeks 
since f as existing among the pharmaceutists of New 
York with respect to the law recently imposed upon 
them by the Legislature, has led to some attempts on 
their part to draw up a Bill which, while securing 
the object in view, the security of the public, shall 
be more equitable in its relations to themselves. A 
joint committee had been appointed by the College 
of Pharmacy, the Apothecaries’ Union, and the Ger¬ 
man Apothecaries’ Societies, and this Committee 
has published the draft of a Bill that they recom¬ 
mend for adoption. It is satisfactory to notice 
that in this draft the principle of the English Act of 
1808, which recognized the right of persons already 
engaged in the business to continue their occupation 
upon simple registration, but required that in tuture 
persons entering it should pass certain examina¬ 
tions, is adopted. An opinion has also been ex¬ 
pressed that the safety of the public will best be 
secured by the increase of educational facilities, anti 
* Pharm. Jourx. p. 348. t Ante , p. 390. 
