296  Proposed  Changes  in  the  Pharmacopoeia.  {Am)lTc%$%rm' 
been  published  in  one  city,"  we  presume  by  Mr.  Colcord's  logic  they 
also  are  to  be  classed  as  "a  local  institution  !" 
Unfortunately,  the  city  of  "  Fraternal  Affection  "  has  always  been 
the  acknowledged  Medical  Metropolis  of  the  nation.  Unfortunately, 
since  here  (as  is  sometimes  the  case)  the  reputation  has  involved  a  cor- 
responding labor  and  responsibility  !  Whenever  the  Convention  has 
desired  to  submit  its  chosen  business  to  a  selected  number  of  zealous, 
hard-working  men  in  the  field  of  abstract  medicine  and  pharmacy,  in- 
stinctively a  considerable  proportion  of  such  material  has  been  culled 
from  Philadelphians.  Are  other  sections  of  our  wide-spread  Republic 
ambitious  of  the  labor  ?  Surely  they  have  only  to  apply  their  own 
shoulders  to  the  wheel  !  If  distant  portions  of  our  common  country 
have  the  misfortune  (real  or  supposed)  of  a  deficient  representation,  who 
is  responsible  for  this  melancholy  condition  of  affairs  ?  Who  is  charge- 
able with  suffering  the  Pharmacopoeia  to  become  "  a  local  institution  ?" 
At  the  last  meeting  of  the  Conventio  n,  (in  1870)  the  number  of 
contributions  in  furtherance  of  the  Revision  presented  by  the  sixty 
delegates  representing  the  pharmacopoeial  science  of  the  nation  (shall 
we  add,  its  zeal  and  industry  ?)  was — six  I1  Of  these  six  contributions 
two,  beyond  all  reach  or  question  of  comparison,  were  most  elaborate 
and  valuable  for  the  purposes^of  a  revision.  Of  these  two  well-studied 
programmes,  one  was  a  Review  presented  by  the  "  Philadelphia  College 
of  Physicians,"  the  other  was  a  Review  presented  by  the  "Philadelphia 
College  of  Pharmacy  !"  Do  honorable  gentlemen  complain  that  they 
themselves  have  been  indifferent  or  negligent  ?  Is  it  the  peculiar 
offence  of  Philadelphians  that  they  have  not  been  equally  indifferent  or 
negligent  ?  Is  it  a  proper  subject  of  self-laudation  that  not  a  fragment 
of  a  report  was  submitted  from  anv  New  England  State  ?  Or  is  it 
held  to  be  a  worthy  ground  for  envious  bickerings,  that  other  cities  and 
States  have  voluntarily  suffered  by  far  the  largest  portion  of  the  pre- 
liminary  labor  of  revision  to  be  actually  performed  "  in  a  single  city  "? 
Where  the  sessions  of  the  Committee  should  be  held  was  simply  a 
question  of  convenience  and  economy.  Wherever  in  the  judgment  of 
the  next  Convention  it  may  be  deemed  expedient  to  fix  the  sessions  of 
the  Executive  Committee,  most  sincerely  do  we  hope  that  Philadelphia 
will  not  be  selected.  If  the  mere  change  of  venue  should  be  success- 
ful in  awakening  a  larger  local  interest  and  activity  in  the  improvement 
1  Pharmacopoeia,  U.  S.,  1870,  p.  viii. 
