Amife"i8^arm' }     The  American  Medical  Association.  2 1 9 
time  resume  it.  The  writer  still  fails  to  realize  that  the  "  medicine  " 
is  necessarily  as  old  as  the  "  medicine- man  and  when,  in  the  progress 
of  civilization  (which  is  evolution),  the  two  became  detached — lo,  there 
were  two  medicine-men  :  the  one  resigning  his  visitations  of  the  sick,, 
that  he  might  give  a  more  efficient  and  undivided  attention  to  the 
preparation  and  dispensation  of  remedies  ;  and  the  other  resigning  his 
labors  over  drugs  that  he  might  give  the  fuller  and  more  observant 
attention  to  the  sick.  And  here,  as  everywhere,  "  specialization  of 
function"  has  resulted  in  a  wonderful  advancement  and  perfection  of 
the  function  on  either  side.  Now  it  is  just  as  nonsensical  to  talk  of 
the  pharmacist  resuming  his  ancient  care  of  the  sick  as  to  talk  of  the 
really  skillful  and  intelligent  physician  returning  "  to  compound  and' 
dispense  his  own  remedies  to  his  own  patients  !"  But  it  is  not  a  whit 
more  nonsensical  so  to  talk. 
"  How  shall  the  art  of  pharmacy  ever  become  either  co-equal  with^ 
or  independent  of,  the  art  of  medicine  ?  If  not  co-equal  with,  it  must 
be  either  superior  or  subordinate  to  the  medical  art  ;  and  subordinate 
it  certainly  is,  and  this  with  a  dangerous  tendency  to  the  mer- 
cantile bias."  (p.  49.)  Such  is  our  author's  way  of  not  u  trying  to 
draw  a  dividing  line  "  between  15  medicine  and  pharmacy,"  which  he 
has  just  before  declared  to  be  "  irrational "  !  (p.  48).  Such  is  the 
"imaginary  antagonism  which  has  been  too  much  cultivated  !"  (p.  7.) 
What  ground  has  Dr.  Squibb  for  imagining  that,  by  the  existing  method 
of  selecting  expert  pharmacists  as  delegates  to  the  Convention,  there  is 
the  probability  of  infusing  a  "  mercantile  bias  "  ?  What  suspicion  has 
ever  been  breathed  that  the  labors  of  the  pharmacist  in  the  past, 
whether  in  Convention  or  in  Committee,  have  ever  tinged  or  tainted 
the  Pharmacopoeia  with  a  "  mercantile  bias "  ?  What  purpose  of 
division  and  antagonism  is  to  be  served  by  the  suggestion  of  "  a 
dangerous  tendency  to  the  mercantile  bias  "  in  the  future  ?  The  impu- 
tation is  as  wholly  unjust  and  unwarranted,  as  it  is  ungenerous  and 
insulting. 
The  existing  decennial  Convention  is  neither  a  Medical  nor  a 
Pharmaceutical  Society.  It  is  a  very  special  body  of  men,  selected 
deliberately  from  chartered  Colleges  of  either  profession,  convened  on 
a  platform  of  individual  equality,  for  the  exclusive  work  of  revising 
the  Pharmacopoeia.  For  fifty  years  has  this  Convention  performed 
its  allotted  duty,  and  performed  it  well.     How  well  is  evinced  by  the 
