370 
EDITORIAL. 
Inspection  of  Drugs. — At  page  297  the  reader  will  find  an  account  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Philadelphia  College  of  Pharmacy  in  relation  to  the 
inspection  of  drugs.  This  action  appears  to  have  arisen  partially  from  the 
disposition  manifested  by  the  Government  to  appoint  new  examiners,  as  in- 
stanced in  the  displacement  of  Dr.  Stewart  of  Baltimore,  whose  qualifica- 
tions for  the  office  are  undoubted,  and  partially  from  dissatisfaction  with 
the  manner  in  which  the  law  has  been  executed  at  this  port.  Believing 
that  a  new  appointment  was  about  to  be  made,  the  College,  impressed  with  the 
importance  of  having  properly  qualified  officers,  felt  bound  to  make  known 
its  views  to  government,  and  urge  the  necessity  not  only  of  having  a  well 
qualified  examiner,  but  that  the  department  should  issue  new  instructions 
by  which  there  would  be  less  latitude  for  the  occurrence  of  anomalous 
decisions.  The  new  circular  of  instructions  will  be  found  at  page  301.  We 
refrain  from  an  analysis  of  it  at  this  time,  believing  that  while  the 
document  is  certainly  an  improvement  on  the  past  indefinite  instructions  in 
some  respects,  yet  it  needs  amendment  in  others,  and  should  receive  the 
deliberate  attention  of  the  several  Colleges,  and  the  American  Pharmaceu- 
tical Association,  especially  as  Mr.  Guthrie  has  invited  criticism.  Dr.  Bailey 
deserves  credit  for  his  interest  in  the  matter,  and  we  trust  he  will  long  con- 
tinue an  executor  of  the  law;  yet,  while  we  have  great  confidence  in 
his  own  good  sense,  we  hope  the  last  clause  of  the  instructions  will  not 
prove  in  other  hands  the  origin  of  annoying  delays  as  is  likely  to  be  the 
ease  where  an  examiner  is  disposed  to  be  crooked  in  his  course  of  action. 
While  the  law  gives  the  selection  of  the  analytical  chemist  to  the  collector, 
and  requires  of  him  a  detailed  analysis  under  oath  or  affirmation,  we  cannot 
but  doubt  the  propriety  and  justice  of  again  bringing  the  issue  in  contact  with 
the  examiner  when  the  law  distinctly  says  the  chemist's  report  shall  hejinal. 
Professional  Quackery. — The  stand  which  Medical  Associations  have 
taken  in  regard  to  quackery,  has  been  clear  and  decided — no  quarter  is 
given — no  compromise  permitted  ;  yet  quackery  in  a  modified  form  is  ac- 
knowledged and  encouraged  by  many  of  the  very  men  who  are  most  de- 
cided in  their  condemnation  of  the  more  glaring  species.  An  apothecary 
invents  a  compound  of  some  well  known  drug  or  drugs,  sends  specimens 
of  it  to  certain  prominent  physicians,  accompanied  by  a  statement  of  its 
superior  qualities,  and  invites  them  to  prescribe  it.  So  far  all  is  well ;  every 
apothecary  has  a  perfect  right  to  manifest  his  enterprise,  by  anticipating 
the  wants  of  his  medical  patrons.  But  when  the  physician  has  tried  it  and 
is  pleased  with  its  effects,  and  prescribes  it  in  other  neighborhoods,  his  pa- 
tients are  compelled  to  go  to  the  original  apothecary,  who  refuses  to  divulge 
the  secret  of  its  composition  and  mode  of  preparation.  If  the  physician  asks 
for  it,  he  is  told  in  such  general  terms,  that  he  is  unable  to  give  the  recipe. 
Now,  if  physicians  are  true  to  their  principles,  they  should  refuse  to  pre- 
scribe a  preparation,  the  recipe  of  which  is  withheld  from  them,  for  there 
is  really  little  difference  between  prescribing  such  preparations  and  regular 
quackeries. 
