Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  ) 
May  1,  1874.  j" 
Editorial. 
(fMtorial  Department 
Pharmaceutical  Legislation. — On  pages  209  to  213  we  publish  an  article 
upon  this  subject,  written  by  Mr.  Charles  C.  Fredigke,  of  Chicago,  in  which 
the  ground  is  taken  that  the  laws,  as  they  have  been  passed  in  several  States 
within  the  last  four  or  five  years,  are  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  This  is  a  new  argument,  which  we  do  not  remember  to  have  met  with 
since  1867,  when  this  question  for  the  first  time  came  up  before  the  American 
Pharmaceutical  Association.  We  do  not  profess  to  be  well  versed  in  law,  but 
we  are  aware  that  legal  advice  has  been  taken  in  several  places,  and  that  the 
answer  invariably  has  been  that  the  right  of  the  Legislatures  to  pass  such  laws 
cannot  be  construed  into  an  unconstitutional  interference  with  the  business  of 
an  apothecary;  but  that  a  law  regulating  the  practice  of  pharmacy  is  simply  a 
regulation  of  sanitary  police,  and  as  such  rests  on  the  same  basis  as,  for  in- 
stance, laws  and  regulations  concerning  the  abatement  of  nuisances,  the  man- 
ufactnre,  storage  and  sale  of  gunpowder,  etc.  We  have  never  heard  the 
right  of  States  questioned  to  make  and  enforce  sanitary  regulations,  and  pre- 
sume that  this  is  one  of  the  powers  which,  by  the  Constitution,  is  not  dele- 
gated to  the  United  States,  nor  prohibited  to  the  States  ;  and  that  it  is  there- 
fore reserved  to  the  latter.  This  must  certainly  be  the  correct  view,  since  the 
prosecutions,  which  were  instituted  under  the  pharmacy  acts  in  Baltimore, 
New  York  and  Rhode  Island,  have  invariably  resulted  in  the  conviction  of  the- 
offenders. 
Mr.  Fredigke's  position  is  probably  correct,  that  nobody  can  be  called  upon 
to  show  how  he  came  about  his  profession  :  that  his  ability  to  practice  it  is  the 
only  evidence  required.  Yet  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  lawyers  are  no- 
where in  this  country  admitted  to  practice  their  profession  in  the  courts  until 
they  have  studied  a  certain  length  of  time  and  have  passed  a  satisfactory  ex- 
amination. Moreover,  their  names  may  be  stricken  from  the  roll  of  attorneys 
for  unprofessional  conduct,  when  they  will  be  absolutely  debarred  from  appear- 
ing before  the  courts  on  behalf  of  clients,  although  no  power  can  prevent  them 
from  giving  legal  advice  to  those  who  may  consult  them  after  they  have  lost 
their  standing  in  court.  Similar  regulations,  we  believe,  are  in  force  in  all  the 
States,  and  it  seems  to  us  that  since  most  of  the  cases  entrusted  to  lawyers  in- 
volve only  questions  of  money  or  property,  that  the  State  should  certainly  have 
the  power  to  prescribe  certain  regulations  for  a  trade  or  profession,  to  the  fol- 
lowers of  which  the  health  and  even  the  life  of  the  public  is  daily  entrusted. 
Pharmacy  is  no  concern  of  the  Government  at  large,  neither  is  medicine- 
and  surgery;  for  the  general  Government  does  nothing  towards  maintaining 
medical  colleges.  Yet  the  aspirant  for  a  position  in  the  medical  corps  of  the 
United  States  army  is  required  (and  this  is  one  of  the  first  conditions)  to  fur- 
nish proof  that  he  has  graduated  at  a  reputable  college  ;  this,  among  other 
qualifications,  must  be  produced  before  the  applicant  is  admitted  to  an  exam- 
ination. The  Government,  through  its  officers,  has  established  a  standard,, 
which  is  in  advance  of  the  accomplishments  required  by  most  medical  col- 
