,1m;  Jour.  Pharm.  ) 
March  1,  1872.  J 
EiUtbrmi. 
137 
Supposing  that  this"  account  represents  the  veto  message  correctly,  we  must 
say  the  Governor  was  probably  never  before  misinformed  oh  any  subject  to  a 
greater  extent  than  in  this  instance,  all  the  facts  'stated  "therein  being  errone- 
ous. However  desirable  it  may  be  t6  have  the  provisions  of  such  a  law  extend 
over  the  entire  State,  it  is  nevertheless  tiue,  that  in  all  the  States,  with  the 
single  exception  of  Rhode  Island,  wherever  such  a  general  law  had  been  intro- 
duced, it  was  defeated.  We  must  remember  that  in  thinly  settled  districts, 
where  frequently  for  many  miles  no  drug  store  can  be  found,  physicians  are 
compelled  to  dispense  medicines  and  carry  them  in  suitable  forms  in  their  sad 
die-bags,  while  the  sale  of  popular  remedies  is  usually  in  the  hands  of  country 
storekeepers  who  make  no  pretensions  as  to  any  acquaintance  with  drugs  and 
their  preparations.  Hence  the  necessity  which  exists  in  the  larger  cities  to 
confine  the  practice  of  pharmacy  to  pharmacists  alone  is  not  felt  there,  and  the 
opposition  to  general  laws  came,  in  most  cases,  only  from  the  representatives 
of  such  districts.  I ri  most  of  the  States  the  idea  of  a  general  law  was  soon 
abandoned,  and  the  efforts  confined  to  the  securing  of  local  laws,  with  the 
expectation  that  their  provisions  would  gradually  extend  to  other  localities- 
In  1871  the  proposed  laws  were  defeated  in  the  States  of  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts,  New  Jersey,  Ohio,  Michigan  and  Illinois;  even  the  only  attempt 
at  a  general  law  for  Pennsylvania,  introduced  by  Mr.  Harry  White  into  the 
Senate,  January  21st,  1868.  was  reported  with  a  negative  recommendation  three 
days  afterwards,  and  did  not  pass.  Besides  the  Georgia  law  of  1848,  which  is 
a  dead  letter,  and  the  Rhode  Island  law  of  1870,  modified  in  1871,  only  the  fol- 
lowing local  laws  referring  to  the  practice  of  pharmacy  are  now  in  force  within 
the  United  States  :  Baltimore,  M  d.,  1870;  and  New  York  City,  1871  ;  but  bills 
are  pending  now  before  the  Legislatures  of  several  States. 
That  the  vetoed  bill  should  be  for  the  special  benefit  of  the  Philadelphia 
College  of  Pharmacy  is  nowhere  apparent.  By  its  provisions,  that  institution 
had  merely "to  nominate  ten  persons  out  of  the  most  skilled  and  competent  phar- 
macists of  the  City  of  Philadelphia  (the  nominations  were  not  to  be  confined  to 
members  of  the  College),  out  of  which  number  the  Mayor  was  to  appoint  the 
Pharmaceutical  Examining  Board,  consisting  of  three  nominees.  By  none  of 
its  acts  did  the  College  ever  pretend  that  it  along  represented  all  the  skill  and 
competency  among  the  pharmacists  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  reliable  and  comr 
petent  pharmacists  not  affiliated  with  it  would  most  assuredly  have  received , 
the  same  consideration  as  any  one  of  its  members,  or.  rather  the  nominations 
would  doubtless  have  been  made  with  the  sole  regard  to  effect  the  greatest 
possible  benefit  for  the  public.  ^ 
Governor  Geary  sadly  misunderstands  the  character  of  medical  colleges,  none 
of  which  claims,  that  we  are  aware  of,  that  its.graduates.in  medicine  are  as  such, 
also  skilled  and  competent  pharmacists;  least  of  all  is  this  the  case  with  the 
faculty  of  the  honorable  medical  colleges  of  this  city.  Regarding  graduates 
in  pharmacy,  the  vetoed  law  placed  on  the  same  footing  the  diploma  qi  certifi- 
cate from  the  Philadelphia  College  of  Pharmacy  or  from  any  other  college  or 
school  of  pharmacy  whose  diploma  or  certificate  is  based  upon  a  regular  terrrt 
of  service  in  the  drug  and  apothecary  business,  , /f  here  was,  therefore,  no  in yi.-, 
dious  distinction. 
