440 
MINUTES  OF  THE 
Prof.  Parrish  read  a  paper  on  the  English  Revenue  Law,  with 
special  reference  to  alcohol,  which  was  accepted  and  referred. 
Dr.  Squibb.  This  paper  forms  a  good  starting  point  for  the  subject 
before  us;  it  shows  the  amount  of  machinery  adopted  to  adulterate 
alcohol  for  pharmaceutical  purposes,  and  yet  the  only  good  purpose 
claimed  to  be  subserved  is  that  ether  and  chloroform  may  be  made  from 
methylated  spirit,  since  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  for  tinctures  and 
the  general  uses  of  Pharmacy  it  is  totally  unfit.  To  ether  and  chloroform, 
which  are  manufactured  on  the  large  scale,  the  argument  is  not  promi- 
nently applicable,  these  articles  not  coming  within  the  scope  of  general 
pharmacy,  as  do  tinctures,  &c.  Even  this  adaptation  to  making  ether  is 
doubtful,  since  in  my  experience  the  presence  of  any  of  these  hydrocar- 
bons tends  to  the  production  of  unclean  ether.  Of  late  years,  and  par- 
ticularly since  the  rise  in  alcohol,  manufacturers  have  in  some  way,  by  close 
distillation  or  otherwise,  debased  the  quality,  so  that  from  95  per  cent, 
alcohol,  from  which  ether  used  to  be  well  made,  it  cannot  now  be  made 
clean ;  made  from  the  same  alcohol,  by  the  same  apparatus,  by  the  same 
process,  it  is  not  clean  enough  for  anaesthetic  purposes;  and  to  obtain  it 
so,  it  has  become  necessary  to  resort  to  the  use  of  Cologne  spirit.  Just 
such  a  step  had  to  be  taken,  some  years  ago,  when  95  per  cent,  alcohol 
was  as  rare  as  Cologne  spirit  is  now.  Good  clean  ether  could  then  be 
made  from  85  per  cent,  alcohol — as  clean  as  was  afterwards  made  from 
95j)er  cent.,  or  now  from  Cologne  spirit.  As  the  market  for  alcohol 
rises,  so  the  makers  produce  worse  alcohol,  containing  more  hydrocar- 
bons. The  legitimate  uses  of  Pharmaceutists  are  not  benefitted  by  any 
adulteration  of  spirit.  Besides  this,  the  price  of  alcohol  does  not  affect 
the  Pharmaceutist  to  the  extent  that  is  urged.  Whatever  the  price  of 
alcohol,  he  obtains  the  same  profit  he  formerly  did ;  so  do  the  manu- 
facturers' profits  remain  the  same.  Hence,  I  maintain  that  the  interests 
of  Pharmaceutists  are  not  so  deeply  involved  in  this  question  as  at  first 
sight  they  appear  to  be.  The  consumer  is  the  person  who  pays.  If  we 
wish  to  diminish  the  price  to  the  consumer,  it  is  well  to  take  up  the  ques- 
tion. In  regard  to  the  machinery  necessary  to  lessen  the  price  of  alcohol 
to  Pharmaceutists,  as  described  in  Mr.  Parrish's  paper,  I  suppose  that  a 
similar  plan  might  be  adopted  here  ;  but  I  cannot  see  in  what  manner  it 
could  conduce  to  the  benefit  of  the  Pharmaceutist,  as  such,  independently 
of  the  considerations  which  exist  in  reference  to  the  consumer. 
The  next  point  is  this  :  the  object  of  the  law  is  to  raise  revenue,  which 
is  rendered  necessary  by  debt.  This  revenue  must  be  levied  and  paid  by 
taxes  upon  articles  of  consumption.  Is  not  alcohol  as  good  an  article  for 
taxation  as  any  other?  Should  we  desire  to  evade  these  taxes  in  their 
application  to  Pharmacy,  simply  because  we  have  so  careful  a  scrutiny  of 
the  interests  of  the  consumer  ?  Should  we  not  rather  allow  them  to  be  im- 
posed without  objection  on  our  part?  If,  however,  after  a  fair  trial,  it 
should  be  found  that  it  bears  unequally,  that  it  falls  with  more  severit 
y 
