EDITORIAL. 
87 
some  of  the  leading  subjects  of  general  interest  to  the  profession,  to  the 
action  of  Committees,  did  more  wisely,  than,  by  attempting  to  urge  any 
ultra  course  of  reform,  they  would  have  done. 
The  brief  period  allotted  to  the  action  of  committees  in  a  primary  con- 
vention necessarily  deprives  them  of  the  deliberation  so  necessary  in  the 
maturing  of  a  constitution  and  code  of  ethics.  These  instruments  are  there- 
fore manifestly  imperfect  in  some  of  their  details,  and  not  comprehensive 
enough  to  embrace  many  points  that  materially  affect  the  welfare  of  the 
pharmaceutical  profession.  To  adapt  them  to  the  real  wants  of  the  latter 
will  be  the  work  of  future  meetings,  when  larger  numbers  shall  be  convened, 
and  the  views  of  pharmaceutists  at  large  shall  become  understood.  We 
have  an  earnest  faith  in  the  ultimate  success  of  the  Association  and  would 
fain  infuse  it  into  our  brethren  everywhere,  until  the  acts  of  the  American 
Pharmaceutical  Association  shall  be  marked  with  a  dignity  and  influence 
that  will  be  felt  and  respected  throughout  our  widely  spread  borders. 
Committees. — The  following  special  Committees  were  appointed  by  the 
Convention,  which  we  bring  forward  in  this  connection,  that  all  apotheca- 
ries and  druggists  who  have  information  calculated  to  promote  the  objects 
of  their  appointment,  may  be  induced  to  present  it. 
On  the  subject  of  the  Inspection  of  Drugs,  Alfred  B.  Taylor  of  Philadel- 
phia, John  Meakim  of  New  York,  Joseph  Burnett  of  Boston  and  Dr.  David 
Stewart  (Drug  Examiner)  of  Baltimore. 
On  the  Sale  of  Poisons  as  conducted  by  apothecaries,  druggists  and 
others,  with  the  view  of  suggesting  some  useful  reform,  William  Procter,  Jr. 
of  Philadelphia,  Dr.  Samuel  B.  Philbrick  of  Boston,  Alexander  Duval  of 
Richmond,  and  George  D.  Coggesliall  of  New  York. 
On  the  subject  of  Secret  or  Quack  Medicines,  Daniel  B.  Smith  of  Phila- 
delphia, Charles  A.  Smith  of  Cincinnati,  Henry  F.  Fish  of  Waterbury, 
Connecticut. 
And  on  the  Resolution  relative  to  Pharmaceutical  statistics,  the  Execu- 
tive Committee  of  the  Convention,  Messrs.  Procter,  Coggesliall  and  Burnett. 
Medical  Examiner  vs.  Foreign  Quackeries. — The  editorial  columns  of 
the  Medical  Examiner  for  October  (1852)  embrace  an  article  entitled  "Fo- 
reign Quackeries  and  the  Drug  Inspection  Law,"  in  which  the  writer  ani- 
madverts on  the  course  of  certain  gentlemen,  who,  when  asked  their 
opinion  as  to  whether  the  Drug  Law  excluded  foreign  secret  medicines, 
gave  it  in  the  negative  ;  and  expresses  his  regret  that  they  should  so  far 
forget  themselves  as  to  be  the  means  of  flooding  the  land,  and  poisoning 
the  people  with  vile  foreign  quackeries,  and  extracting  from  them  untold 
sums  of  gold  in  return  !  The  object  of  the  writer,  who  is  anonymous,  ap- 
pears to  be  to  throw  obloquy  on  the  College  of  Pharmacy,  because  the  signers 
of  the  document  happened  to  be  members  of  that  Institution ;  and  to  praise 
