Am.  Jour.  Pharm.) 
May,  1920.) 
U.  S.  P.  IX  Revision. 
309 
on  one  set  of  page  proof,  and  from  this  material  the  copy  for  foundry 
proof  was  prepared.  The  general  chairman  finally  passed  upon  the 
foundry  and  plate  proofs  and  printing  was  ordered.  Two  thousand 
copies  were  in  the  first  printing,  and  these  were  sent  to  the  journals 
for  review,  to  all  members  of  the  Committee  of  Revision,  and  a  few 
were  sold.  A  few  typographical  errors  were  discovered  by  this 
critical  review  of  the  finished  book  and  these  were  all  corrected 
in  the  plates  before  the  first  large  edition  of  10,000  copies  was  printed, 
so  that  the  main  edition,  from  the  very  start  of  the  printing,  was  free 
from  the  majority  of  the  errors  which  have  been  only  recently 
announced. 
As  a  result  of  the  experience  in  the  revision  of  the  U.  S.  P.  IX 
there  is  one  outstanding  feature  which  would  seem  to  lend  itself  to 
broader  application  in  the  next  revision,  namely,  an  increased 
number  of  personal  conferences.  While  it  is  true  that  the  next 
revision  of  the  Pharmacopoeia  does  not  seem  to  call  for  as  extensive 
alteration,  in  either  style  or  fact,  as  heretofore,  and  therefore  will 
naturally  require  much  less  time  for  revision  than  the  U.  S.  P.  IX, 
yet  the  correspondence  method  is  so  cumbersome  and  time-con- 
suming, that  the  conference  plan  for  getting  results  would  greatly 
lessen  the  necessary  time  of  revision.  As  an  illustration  of  the  time 
necessary  for  the  correspondence  method,  with  the  committee 
scattered  over  a  large  part  of  the  United  States,  and  the  time  for  an 
exchange  of  mail  being  at  least  five  days  in  some  instances,  the  fol- 
lowing general  plan  had  to  be  followed  in  voting: 
The  subject  for  consideration  was  presented  to  the  committee 
by  the  general  chairman,  with  a  statement  of  the  proposal  and  any 
necessary  explanations  or  comments  for  the  members.  Two  weeks 
was  allowed  for  assembling  all  discussions.  At  the  end  of  two 
weeks,  a  voting  sheet  was  mailed  to  each  member  with  all  the  com- 
ments on  the  proposition.  Two  weeks  was  again  allowed  for  the 
return  of  the  voting  sheets  before  the  result  of  the  vote  was  an- 
nounced, thus  four  weeks  was  the  minimum  time  required  for  a 
vote.  As  frequently  happened,  a  member  would  submit  an  amend- 
ment, which  required  another  two  or  four  weeks  for  final  settle- 
ment. Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  hundreds  of  problems  before 
the  committee  involve  an  extended  time  for  final  agreement. 
It  is  therefore  suggested  that  when  the  General  Committee  of 
Revision  of  the  U.  S.  P.  IX  submits  its  recommendations  to  the  con- 
vention for  procedure  in  the  new  revision,  that  they  advise  the  new 
