Am.  Jour  .  Pharm.  ) 
Feb.  1, 1874.  $ 
Editorial. 
91 
public  by  the  distribution  of  gratuitous  tracts  on  sanitary  subjects.  It  is  doubt- 
less correct  that  the  public  needs  correct  information  on  hygiene  and  kindred 
subjects,  which  to  the  adult  population  can  be  supplied  by  pamphlets  written 
in  a  plain  and  attractive  style,  and  by  popular  lectures  delivered  by  those  who 
understand  the  art  of  expressing  leading  scientific  principles  in  a  plain  and 
simple  language,  devoid  of  technicalities  ;  but  it  seems  to  us  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  topic  into  at  least  the  more  advanced  classes  of  our  public  schools 
could  not  but  have  the  most  beneficial  results  in  the  future. 
Selling  of  Liquor  by  Apothecaries. — The  readers  of  the  "Journal"  are  aware 
that  we  are  not  an  advocate  of  the  selling  of  liquor  as  a  beverage  by  apothecaries ; 
but  that  we  desire  to  have  it  restricted  for  medicinal  purposes  only.  We  have 
been  taught  to  look  upon  Spiritus  frumenti,  Spiritus  vini  gallici,  Vinum  xeri- 
cum,  &c,  as  remedial  agents,  when  prescribed  by  a  physician,  and  likewise 
that  the  pharmacist  is  not  responsible  for  mistakes  or  misuses  by  the  patient 
of  the  prescribed  medicine,  provided  the  prescription  has  been  accurately  com- 
pounded and  correctly  labelled,  and  the  dose  ordered  is  not  excessive.  In  this, 
however,  it  seems  we  have  been  mistaken.  President  Judge  John  Dean,  of 
the  24th  judicial  district  of  Pennsylvania,  which  is  composed  of  the  counties 
of  Huntingdon,  Blair  and  Cambria,  last  fall  sentenced  several  apothecaries  of 
Tyrone  for  selling  liquor  without  a  license,  and  then  made  the  following  remarks,, 
which  we  take  from  one  of  our  cotemporaries : 
Druggists  are  authorized  to  sell  liquor  for  medical  purposes,  subject,  however, 
to  the  risk  of  indictment.  A  physician's  prescription  is  not  of  itself  a  safeguard 
for  the  druggist.  If  the  latter,  even  on  the  prescription  of  a  regular  physician^ 
sells  liquor  to  persons  of  known  intemperate  habits,  or  to  those  who  are  known 
to  use  liquor  as  a  beverage,  he  is  liable  to  indictment,  and,  if  found  guilty,  iviJl 
be  punished  to  the  extent  of  the  law.  In  short,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  a 
druggist  who  sells  liquor  for  any  purpose  whatever,  or  upon  the  prescription  of 
the  most  eminent  physician  of  the  country,  does  so  at  his  own  risk. 
We  know  nothing  of  the  merits  of  the  case  or  cases  in  question ;  but,  with 
all  due  deference  to  the  legal  attainments  of  the  learned  judge,  we  would 
respectfully  submit,  that  if  the  opinion  of  the  Court  be  the  law  of  the  land, 
then  it  would  be  high  time  for  pharmacists  to  critically  examine  every  prescrip- 
tion, and  to  refuse  to  put  up  such  as  in  their  opinion  might  injure  the  patient, 
directly  or  indirectly,  notwithstanding  they  have,  until  now,  generally  supposed 
that,  from  education  and  experience,  the  physician  is  better  qualified  than  the 
pharmacist  for  the  selection  of  the  proper  remedies  in  each  special  case.  The 
confusion  which  would  result  from  such  a  course,  the  dangers  to  which  patients 
would  be  exposed,  the  uncertainty  of  the  attending  physician  regarding  the 
effects  of  the  medicines  furnished  upon  his  prescriptions,  and  the  abuses  gene- 
rally to  which  such  a  course  would  lead,  are  evils  patent  to  all  and  so  great 
that,  as  heretofore,  the  responsibility  of  prescribing  the  proper  remedies  must 
of  necessity  be  left  with  the  physician,  while  the  accountableness  of  the  phar- 
macist must  be  confined  to  the  conscientious  execution  of  the  physician's  order 
and  the  quality  of  the  remedies  furnished. 
