Am.  Tour.  Pharm. 
Dec,  1 918. 
Editorial. 
833 
perience  of  more  than  forty  years,  it  has  been  my  good  fortune  to 
become  acquainted  with  many  practical  pharmacists  as  well  as  with 
very  many  estimable  teachers  in  the  schools  of  pharmacy  and  these 
alike  have  upheld  the  ethics  of  the  profession  and,  possessing  the 
requisite  knowledge,  have  taken  pride  in  their  ability  to  compound 
and  dispense  medicines  in  the  most  skillful  and  scientific  manner. 
The  impression  that  remains  is  that  there  is  no  town  of  any  size  in 
the  United  States  where  scientific  prescription  dispensing  of  a  very 
high  order  is  not  practiced.  Our  friend  possibly  has  failed  to  attend 
the  meetings  of  the  Section  on  Practical  Pharmacy  and  Dispensing 
of  the  American  Pharmaceutical  Association. 
The  Pharmacopoeia  of  the  United  States  is  admittedly  the  peer 
of  any  national  pharmacopoeia,  but  who  has  made  it  so  ?  The  U.  S. 
P.  IX  is  the  product  of  the  improvements  and  advances  incorporated 
in  each  of  the  previous  revisions  and  since  the  revision  of  1840,  prac- 
tical pharmacists  have  contributed  very  largely  to  the  revisions.  Can 
our  friend  be  so  unacquainted  with  the  history  of  the  various  re- 
visions of  the  pharmacopoeia  that  he  fails  to  give  due  credit  to  the 
work  of  the  practical  pharmacists  thereon?  Many  of  the  formulas, 
admitted  by  foreign  authorities  as  being  superior  to  their  own,  have 
been  originated  or  improved  by  practical  pharmacists  and  these  have 
added  greatly  to  the  reputation  and  admitted  high  standing  of  our 
national  pharmacopoeia. 
The  statement  that  there  are  only  two  retail  pharmacists  on  the 
present  committee  of  revision  is  not  correct  and  further  it  is  very 
misleading.  A  reference  to  the  list  of  the  members  selected  by  the 
Pharmacopoeial  Convention  as  the  Committee  of  Revision  as  pub- 
lished in  the  preface  of  the  U.  S.  P.  IX, — pages  xlii-xliii,  will 
prove  this  statement  to  be  erroneous.  Further,  it  can  be  shown  that 
a  very  large  percentage  of  the  committee  had  a  pharmaceutical  educa- 
tion and  that,  at  some  period,  many  had  been  engaged  as  practical 
retail  pharmacists  and  no  doubt  their  work  in  the  revision  amply 
reflected  the  knowledge  and  experience  gained  in  such  professional 
service.  Moreover,  in  the  recent  filling  of  vacancies  on  this  com- 
mittee, at  least  three  more  retail  pharmacists  were  elected. 
The  pharmacists  have  certainly  no  reason  to  offer  apologies  for 
the  quantity  or  the  quality  of  the  services  they  rendered  in  the 
revisions  of  the  Pharmacopoeia  of  the  United  States. 
G.  M.  B. 
