Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  \ 
March,  1900.  J 
Synthetic  Chemicals. 
109 
of  an  agreed  case,  the  proceedings  being  in  the  nature  of  an  action 
in  rem,  against  twelve  articles  of  this  class,  viz.,  aristol,  phenacetin, 
europhen,  piperazine,  protargol,  losophan,  lycetol,  sulphonal,  tanni- 
gen,  tannipine,  trional  and  salophen,  all  products  of  the  Farben- 
fabriken  of  Elberfeld  Co.  A  jury  trial  was  waived  and  testimony 
taken  before  the  District  Judge  of  the  Southern  District  of  New 
York. 
It  was  admitted  that  the  articles  in  question  were  trade-marked 
or  patented,  or  both,  but  it  was  claimed  that  they  were  exempt 
under  the  proviso,  as  uncompounded  chemicals. 
A  large  number  of  experts  testified  in  the  case,  including  per- 
sons prominent  in  chemistry,  pharmacy  and  medicine.  By  these 
experts,  the  importers  aimed  to  show  that  while  the  articles  in 
question  were  known  as  chemical  compounds,  they  were  not  com- 
pounded in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  medicine  and 
pharmacy;  that,  while  composed  of  different  elements,  these  ele- 
ments were  combined  in  such  a  way  that  the  constituents  had  lost 
their  individualities,  while  the  compound  acquired  a  being  or  in- 
dividuality entirely  its  own,  with  characteristics  and  properties 
peculiar  to  itself  and  distinct  from  other  compounds — different  and 
distinct  also  from  the  properties  of  the  various  constituents  of  which 
it  was  composed.  In  pharmacy,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  shown 
that  compounding  is  understood  to  mean  the  mechanical  mixing 
of  two  or  more  different  substances  where  no  chemical  union  takes 
place,  the  resultant  compound  having  no  distinctive  features  pe- 
culiar to  itself,  but  retaining  the  characters  of  all  its  constituents. 
The  Government,  while  admitting  in  general  the  contentions  above 
stated,  argued  that  the  design  of  Congress  was  to  tax,  primarily, 
proprietary  medicines,  even  to  the  extent  of  including  medicines 
which  imitated  or  counterfeited  proprietary  medicines  ;  that  this 
object  would  be  defeated  if  the  desired  construction  was  placed  upon 
the  law,  as  it  would  result  in  relieving  a  mtdicine  which  could  be 
designated  as  an  uncompounded  chemical  from  any  restriction 
whatever,  so  that  quinine,  for  example,  could  be  sold  unstamped  as 
"  Smith's  Ague  Cure,"  or  under  any  patent  or  trade-mark  designa- 
tion, so  long  as  it  were  unmixed  with  other  substances.  Moreover, 
Congress  deals  with  broad  and  general  meanings,  and  could  not  be 
expected  to  note  such  delicate  distinctions  as  that  between  chemical 
compounding  and  pharmaceutical  compounding,  between  cohesion 
