206         The  Pharmacist  and  the  Pharmacopoeia .     { Am  Ma?yiw5.arm" 
was,  in  many  respects,  so  defective  that  it  failed  to  command  gen- 
eral acceptance.  At  the  end  of  ten  years,  which  had  been  fixed  on 
for  its  revision,  it  seemed,  except  in  some  limited  localities,  to  have 
been  almost  forgotten." 
It  was  no  doubt  due  to  this  general  lack  of  interest,  and  also  to  the 
absence  of  any  due  appreciation  of  the  far-reaching  possibilities  of 
hasty  action,  that  the  delegates  from  a  large  section  of  the  country 
failed  to  take  any  interest  in  either  of  the  conventions  that  were 
held  in  1830.  This  lack  of  general  interest,  no  doubt,  led  to  the 
publication  of  two  Pharmacopoeias  for  that  year. 
The  Pharmacopoeia  published  by  the  convention  that  met  in  New 
York  preserved  many  of  the  inaccuracies  and  faults  of  the  first 
Pharmacopoeia.  Quite  an  exhaustive  review  of  this  book  will  be 
found  in  the  second  volume  of  the  American  Journal  of  Pharmacy, 
1830,  page  316. 
The  convention  that  assembled  in  Washington,  while  not  numer- 
ous, was  composed  of  earnest  and  able  scholars,  and  had  presented 
to  them  a  very  complete  draft,  for  the  revision  of  the  Pharmacopoeia, 
by  the  delegates  of  the  College  of  Physicians  of  Philadelphia. 
With  some  slight  modifications  this  draft  was  accepted  and  referred 
for  publication  to  a  sub-committee,  composed  of  the  members  of 
the  delegation  from  the  College  of  Physicians  of  Philadelphia : 
Dr.  Thomas  Hewson,  Dr.  George  B.  Wood  and  Dr.  Franklin  Bache, 
who  had  also  prepared  the  original  draft. 
Referring  to  the  precautions  that  had  been  taken  to  avoid  mis- 
takes, Dr.  George  B.  Wood  says  :  "  Before  allowing  the  book  to  go 
to  press,  so  desirous  was  the  committee  that  it  should  receive  the 
approval  of  all  who  might  afterwards  be  practically  concerned,  that 
it.  was  submitted  to  the  scrutiny  of  the  Philadelphia  College  of 
Pharmacy,  which,  after  a  careful  examination  by  a  committee,  re- 
turned it  with  their  endorsement,  making,  however,  certain  valuable 
suggestions  of  which  the  committee  was  happy  to  avail  itself." 
This  committee  of  the  Philadelphia  College  of  Pharmacy  was 
composed  of  Daniel  B.  Smith,  Henry  Troth  and  Dr.  Benjamin  Ellis. 
The  Philadelphia  Pharmacopoeia,  as  it  was  sometimes  called  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  Pharmacopoeia  published  in  New  York,  was 
published  in  1831,  and  while  it  met  with  the  approval  of  a  number 
of  physicians  and  pharmacists,  was  severely  criticised  by  some 
individual  writers. 
