284 
EDITORIAL. 
Dr.  Cummiskey  agreed  with  Dr.  Burns  in  the  main.  He  thought  the 
bill  before  the  Legislature'was  the  best  that  could  be  obtained,  and  much 
better  than  none.  The  druggists  know  we  differ  in  opinion,  which  is  the 
reason  they  meet  and  express  themselves  with  the  effrontery  which  they 
have  done. 
Prof.  S.  D.  Gross,  being  asked  his  opinion,  advised  co-operation  with 
the  druggists  by  appointing  a  committee  to  confer  with  a  similar  commit- 
tee from  the  College  of  Pharmacy.  If  they  refuse  to  act  with  us,  then 
let  physicians  take  the  matter  in  their  own  hands.  There  are  as  many 
respectable  rnen  among  the  druggists  as  there  are  among  physicians,  and 
they  could  not  presume  to  "  wilfully  and  knowingly  "  impose  on  the  com- 
munity and  the  profession. 
Dr.  John  Bell  did  not  approve  of  co-operation  with  druggists.  He  took 
high  ground  as  to  the  rights  of  physicians  to  be  served  with  pure  medi- 
cines, and  did  not  believe  the  apothecaries  would  cordially  co-operate. 
In  reference  to  the  bill,  he  saw  the  difficulty  of  fixing  the  charge  of  "  wil- 
ful and  knowing"  adulteration  on  an  apothecary  by  evidence,  and  the 
function  of  an  informer,  even  when  the  motives  were  pure,  was  objection- 
able. 
Dr.  Stetler  believed  that  the  druggists  were  not  hostile  to  legislation 
on  this  subject,  in  evidence  of  which  he  asked  the  Secretary  to  read  one 
of  their  resolutions.  They  have  no  confidence  in  either  of  the  bills  here- 
tofore brought  forward,  as  impracticable  and  oppressive.  He  urged  joint 
action  as  being  more  likely  to  result  in  proper  inspection  and  the  registra- 
tion of  pharmaceutists.  He  thought  very  few  were  competent  to  act  as 
inspectors,  perhaps  not  half  a  dozen  in  this  city,  as  none  but  a  first-class 
analytical  chemist  is  competent.  He  was  in  favor  of  conferring  with  emi- 
nent druggists,  and  jointly  going  to  Harrisburg  to  get  a  law. 
The  resolution  No.  4  of  the  druggists  was  now  read,  when  a  vote  was 
taken  on  Dr.  O'Hara's  resolutions.    Yeas  4,  nays  10. 
Dr.  Stetler  proposed  a  committee,  which  was  agreed  to,  and  after  some 
discussion  the  number  fixed  as  five,  when  the  President  appointed  Prof. 
Gross,  Dr.  Gebhard,  Dr.  Hamilton,  Dr.  Stetler,  and  Dr.  Burns,  to  act  as 
the  committee,  and  the  Secretary  was  directed  to  apprize  the  College  of 
Pharmacy  that  such  a  meeting  had  been  held,  and  to  request  that  they 
appoint  a  similar  committee. 
The  second  bill,  referred  to  in  the  two  meetings  above,  was  withdrawn 
by  the  mover,  and  a  third  bill,  limited  in  its  action  to  the  City  of  Phila- 
delphia, substituted  for  it  and  read  in  place.  This  proved  to  be  the  most 
objectionable  of  all,  as,  in  addition  to  the  previous  sections  relative  to  the 
adulteration  of  drugs,  it  contained  the  following  section  : 
Section  2.  That  the  proprietor  of  any  store,  dispensary,  laboratory,  or 
establishment,  situate  in  said  City,  who  shall  employ  any  person  not  a 
graduate  in  Pharmacy  to  compound  or  admix  any  drugs  or  medicinal 
preparations,  for  prescriptions  or  retail  sale,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor,  and  on  conviction  thereof  shall  forfeit  and  pay  to  said  City 
a  penalty  not  exceeding  two  thousand  dollars,  together  with  costs  of  pro- 
secution. 
