EDITORIAL. 
469 
that  it  has  not  been  usual  with  us  to  send  copies  of  our  Journal  to  authors 
of  reviewed  books  or  articles,  unless  requested,  and  hence  we  did  not  in- 
tentionally neglect  Dr.  Coates ;  3d,  that  our  remarks  were  directed  to  the 
subject  matter  of  the  Address,  without  any  unkind  feeling  against  the 
author,  and  that  we  have  no  where  attributed  "  improper  motives"  or  have 
spoken  disrespectfully  of  him,  or  given  just  cause  for  the  sharp  language  of 
his  reply. 
With  these  necessary  explanations,  and  without  feeling  it  needful  to  alter 
our  record,  or  to  enter  into  any  defence,  we  submit  the  letter  to  the  perusal 
of  such  of  our  readers  as  feel  disposed  to  occupy  themselves  with  it, 
believing  that  a  due  appreciation  of  the  ejaculation  of  the  poet, — 
' '  0  wad  some  Power  the  giftie  gie  us 
To  see  oursels  as  others  see  us  ! 
It  wad  frae  monie  a  blunder  free  us 
An'  foolish,  notion," 
— would  have  saved  the  author  much  irritation  and  "  vexation  of  spirit,"  and 
have  given  our  readers  full  five  pages  more  of  profitable  "  Varieties,"  which 
have  necessarily  been  excluded. 
To  the  Editors  of  the  American  Journal  of  Pharmacy  : 
Gentlemen, — I  am  induced  to  the  unusual  course  of  replyiug  to  a 
review  by  circumstances  which  seem  to  call  for  it,  and  to  make  the  case 
exceptional ;  and  these  I  now  propose  to  enumerate. 
Such  replies,  no  doubt,  are  often  a  waste  of  labor,  or  worse  ;  but  ic 
appears  to  me  that  I  have  been  held  up  to  the  apothecaries  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  your  recent  May  and  July  numbers,  as  disrespectful  and 
mimical  to  them,  and  as  using  strange  liberties  of  language  in  speaking 
of  them.  Against  this  I  feel  the  strongest  cause  to  protest,  both  from 
natural  disinclination  to  place  myself  in  such  a  position,  from  my  numer- 
ous and  valued  friendships  within  the  pharmaceutical  profession,  and 
from  the  palpable  absurdity  of  an  individual,  who  obtains  his  livelihood 
by  the  practice  of  medicine,  being  willing  to  make  enemies  of  the 
apothecaries  of  the  city  in  which  he  resides.  The  call  for  a  reply  is,  how- 
ever, rendered  still  stronger.  Direct  personal  imputations  of  "  excessive 
professional  pride,"  of  a  claim  to  "  infallibility,"  and  of  an  "  extraordinary  " 
and  "singular"  character  in  a  recent  address  of  mine,  and  in  its  "lan- 
guage" and  "expressions,"  and  of  a  "  liberty  "  taken  in  using  them,  are  not 
enough ;  but  a  positive  and  plain  assertion  is  made  of  the  existence  of 
improper  motives.  All  this  is  brought  against  me  by  name,  and  in  reply 
to  a  paper  which  in  no  instance  alludes  to  individuals  personally,  or 
gives  any  clue  by  which  to  identify  them. 
It  seems  to  me  that  all  the  instances  cited  in  my  address  are  handled 
with  tenderness  and  reserve — at  least,  it  was  intended  that  such  would 
be  the  case.  The  effort  at  delicacy  seems  to  me  to  be  more  than  was 
necessary  ;  and  I  think  that  some  of  the  instances,  at  which  the  address  has 
only  laughed,  might  be  made  the  subjects  of  a  graver  censure  ;  the  milder 
form  being  preferred,  as  more  becoming  to  citizens,  to  persons  devoted 
to  justice,  humanity  and  science,  and  to  gentlemen. 
There  was  no  copy  of  either  of  the  two  reviews  sent  to  me,  although  an 
old  friendship  subsisted  between  the  principal  editor  and  myself;  and  I 
am  indebted  to  other  pharmaceutical  friends  for  the  opportunity  of  read- 
