496  American  Pharmaceutical  Association.     { A8?ptSSbeJ!hiS?* 
received  and  referred  to  the  Publication  Committee,  and  Professor  Beal  was 
given  a  vote  of  thanks  for  his  laborious  work. 
The  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Preliminary  Education  of  Apprentices 
was  referred  back  to  the  Committee  on  the  Revision  of  Pharmacy  Laws. 
A  SUMMARY  OF  ANSWERS  TO  MAIN  QUESTIONS  OF  THE  COM- 
MITTEE'S CIRCULAR  OF  INTERROGATORIES. 
Compiled  by  C.  S.  N.  Hallberg, 
was  read  by  that  gentleman.  This  consisted  of  a  tabulated  statement  of 
responses  to  questions  regarding  pharmacy  laws,  boards  of  pharmacy,  require- 
ments for  registration,  methods  of  registration,  examinations,  examination 
fees,  registration  of  licenses,  revocations,  titles  and  privileges,  poison  laws  and 
label  provisions,  adulteration,  limited  license  and  exemptions.  Thirty-one 
replies  expressing  opinions  were  received  from  various  boards,  associations  and 
schools  of  pharmacy.  The  paper  was  received  and  referred  to  the  Publica- 
tion Committee.  Messrs.  Hallberg  and  Beal  were  then  nominated  for  the 
chairmanship  of  the  Section  for  the  ensuing  year,  while  Messrs.  Oldberg,  Hall- 
berg, Hereth,  Beal,  Whelpley,  Puckner,  Kaufmann,  Mason  and  Webster  were 
named  for  the  secretaryship,  and  these  names  were  posted  until  the  second 
session  of  the  Section. 
The  next  business  was  the  reading  of  a  paper  entitled 
SHOULD  A  PHARMACY  LAW  BE  UNIFORM  TERRITORIALLY? 
By  Edw.  S.  Dawson,  Jr. 
This  paper  was  in  answer  to  the  query  :  "  Should  a  pharmacy  law  be  uniform 
in  its  application  throughout  the  State,  or  should  a  distinction  be  made  for 
smaller  towns?" 
The  author  gave  his  reasons  for  and  against  such  applications,  and  concluded 
by  saying  :  "  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  a  pharmacy  law  should  be  framed  so  as 
to  secure  greater  protection  to  public  health,  and  afford  protection  to  the  legiti- 
mate druggist  up  to  a  point  where  the  cry  of  1  monopoly  for  the  drug  business  ' 
cannot  be  set  up  ;  but  care  should  be  taken  that  the  druggist  who  receives  the 
least  benefit  from  the  operation  of  the  law  should  not  have  his  hands  legally 
fettered." 
Following  this  was  another,  called 
SHOULD  PHARMACISTS  OR  THE  STATE  SUPPORT  THE  PHARMACY 
LAW  AND  THE  BOARD? 
By  H.  M.  Whitney. 
The  writer  maintained  that  all  examinations  to  secure  a  personal  State  certifi- 
cate of  registration,  conveying  a  special  and  legalized  position,  with  its  rights 
and  privileges,  should  be  paid  for  by  the  applicant.  But  he  believed  that  the 
enforcement  of  the  pharmacy  law,  poison  law,  or  any  other  special  duty  placed 
by  the  State  upon  the  board  should  be  supported  and  paid  from  the  State 
treasury. 
Professor  Kremers  suggested  that  the  applicant  be  not  allowed  more  than 
three  opportunities  to  pass  the  examination.  Mr.  Ebert  was  opposed  to 
pharmacists  supporting  the  board  unless  the  latter  did  more  to  enforce  the  law 
and  detect  adulteration.  Mr.  Mason  believed  two  opportunities  sufficient  for 
an  applicant  to  show  his  fitness  for  registration.    Mr,  Whitney  said  measures 
