EDITORIAL. 
377 
made,  the  quantity  sold,  and  the  date  of  such  sale.  Any  person  offending 
herein  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on  conviction  he  sentenced  to 
pay  a  fine  not  exceeding  fifty  dollars." 
The  general  effect  of  this  law  will  no  doubt  be  useful,  if  its  provisions 
are  carried  out  by  apothecaries  and  druggists,  and  all  should  endeavor  to 
do  so  as  strictly  as  possible,  at  least  in  spirit  if  not  in  letter.  There  are, 
however,  some  poir.ts  arising  out  of  its  application  which  need  attention. 
After  setting  forth  to  what  class  of  persons  only  the  apothecary  and  drug- 
gist shall  dispose  of  poisons,  viz.,  those  presenting  a  physican's  prescrip- 
tion, and  those  considered  to  be  "  respectable  inhabitants  of  full  age,"  &c, 
the  law  says,  "  in  all  cases  of  such  sale,  the  word  Poison  shall  be  carefully 
and  legibly  attached,"  &c.  Now  if  we  understand  the  tenor  of  the  law,  it 
means  that  when  a  physician  prescribes  either  of  the  five  poisons  named 
in  the  law,  the  apothecary  is  bound  to  mark  the  vial  or  package  with  the 
word  poison.  Will  physicians  submit  to  this?  Is  the  apothecary  justified 
in  construing  the  law  as  applying  to  unprofessional  demands  only?  If 
not,  must  it  apply  to  every  case  where  the  poison  is  diluted  or  associated 
in  mixtures  with  other  drugs,  equally  with  those  cases  where  sold  pure 
and  unmixed.  In  a  word,  must  the  Liq.  Morphiae  Sulphatis  of  the  Pharma- 
copoeia, and  a  solution  of  a  grain  or  two  of  corrosive  sublimate  in  a  pint 
of  syrup  of  sarsaparilla,  be  marked  Poison  f 
In  our  private  opinion  the  law  was  framed  to  meet  a  particular  class  of 
cases,  where  these  poisons  are  sold  in  a  pure  and  concentrated  form,  and  bet- 
ter adapted  to  be  used  maliciously,  or  with  evil  intent,  and  hence  only  those 
more  commonly  used  for  that  purpose  are  named.  If  it  were  not  so,  why 
were  not  the  long  list  of  narcotic  and  irritant  poisons  named  in  the  law, 
as  opium  and  its  preparations,  aconite,  veratria,  tartar  emetic,  belladonna, 
croton  oil,  elaterium,  etc  ?  And  if  the  poisons  of  the  law  were  intended  to 
be  marked  "  poison"  when  prescribed  by  the  physician,  why  was  not  the 
same  requirement  extended  to  those  other  poisons  which  are  more  frequent- 
ly prescribed  ? 
In  regard  to  that  part  of  the  law  requiring  registration,  it  is  all  right 
and  proper,  and  apothecaries  and  druggists  should  carry  it  out  conscien- 
tiously for  their  own  sakes  and  for  the  public  good ;  yet  there  is  one  case  of 
frequent  occurrence  which  will  cause  trouble,  if  literally  construed.  "We 
mean  where  the  head  of  a  family  sends  a  servant  for  corrosive  sublimate 
for  vermin— a  very  frequent  occurrence.  In  such  case  can  the  apothecary 
consider  the  servant  or  messenger  as  a  "  respectable  inhabitant"  in  the 
view  of  the  law  ?  If  not,  will  a  note  from  the  "  head  of  the  family,"  by  the 
servant  known  to  be  such,  be  a  sufficient  guarantee?  if  not,  and  the  head 
of  the  family  has  to  come  and  make  "  personal  application,"  it  will  create 
great  difficulty. 
Before  leaving  the  subject,  it  may  be  interesting  to  give  a  sketch  of  the 
requirements  of  the  New  York  law,  which  we  take  from  the  Druggists' 
Circular  for  June  1860. 
