AAuiustr*  fohiSm'}       Thc  Ncxt  U-  S-  P-  Re™™n.  589 
activities  of  all  workers  in  pharmaceutical  fields,  with  a  view  of 
previously  working  out  many  of  the  self-evident  problems  of  the 
next  revision  and  thus  facilitating  the  next  issue  of  the  U  .S.  P. 
All  of  these  proposals  are  worthy  of  consideration  and  adoption 
at  least  in  part  and  should  be  utilized  so  far  as  practicable. 
The  first  suggestion,  up  to  a  certain  point,  is  desirable,  but  the 
conclusion  of  the  revision  is  impossible  since  one  of  the  first  and 
most  important  duties  of  the  new  revision  committee  will  be  to 
select  the  articles  to  be  included  in  the  U.  S.  P.  X.  How  would  it 
be  possible  to  revise  the  text  until  the  contents  of  the  book  are 
decided? 
The  1910  Committee  can  work  out  many  problems  and  tests, 
under  the  direction  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  as  has  been 
done  effectively  in  the  past,  and  present  their  report  and  recom- 
mendations for  the  use  and  aid  of  the  new  committee.  For  instance, 
one  of  the  recommendations  of  the  1910  Convention  was  that  the 
average  amount  of  loss,  resulting  from  the  grinding  of  crude  drugs, 
be  determined,  if  possible,  for  each  drug  in  the  U.  S.  P.  and  in- 
cluded in  a  table  as  a  guide  to  drug  millers,  but  sufficient  time  was 
not  available  for  collecting  this  data  and  the  preparation  of  such  a 
table  for  the  U.  S.  P.  IX,  but  such  work  could  now  be  carried  out 
by  the  sub-committee  and  thus  be  made  available  for  the  new 
Pharmacopoeia. 
The  establishment  of  a  permanent  U.  S.  P.  laboratory  has  been 
the  dream  of  many  workers  in  Pharmacopceial  Revision,  but  its 
practicability  is  questionable.  If  established  on  a  sufficiently  com- 
prehensive scale  to  be  effective,  with  salaried  experts  in  chemistry, 
pharmacy,  botany,  volatile  oils,  biological  standardization,  etc.,  and 
with  the  necessary  equipment  and  assistants,  the  cost  becomes  pro- 
hibitive and  we  have  the  public  statement  of  a  government  laboratory 
expert  that  the  result  of  work  from  such  a  laboratory  would  be  dis- 
appointing if  speed  is  desired  or  expected. 
To  stimulate  the  fullest  cooperation  of  every  commercial  and 
private-  pharmaceutical  and  chemical  laboratory,  of  the  workers  in 
every  college  of  pharmacy,  and  of  every  investigator  in  retail  drug 
stores,  is  ideal  and  this  help,  before  the  revision  starts,  and  after- 
wards should  be  utilized  to  the  fullest  extent. 
I  desire,  however,  to  offer  a  constructive  suggestion  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  this  much  desired  speeding  up  of  the  next  re- 
vision.   The  present  organization,  or  machinery  of  revision,  has 
