384  Revision  of  the  U.  S.  Pharmacopoeia.  {^"'- ^JLl\^9^: 
length  of  time  to  formulate  his  arguments  in  a  discussion  and  the 
question  is  then  decided  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  entire 
Committee  either  for  or  against  the  proposition.  In  this  connec- 
tion it  may  be  said  that  the  present  procedure  leaves  much  to  be 
desired  as  it  works  out  in  practice  in  many  instances,  especially 
when  questions  come  to  a  vote  in  the  General  Committee.  It  is 
not  uncommon  in  such  a  case,  when  the  vote  is  tabulated,  to  find 
that  those  who  may  rightfully  claim  to  be  experts  on  a  particular 
subject  and  who  have  given  time,  thought  and  study  to  a  subject 
in  addition  to  experience  which  they  possess,  are  outvoted  by  mem- 
bers who  are  not  particularly  familiar  with  the  question  except  in 
so  far  as  they  have  been  informed  by  the  discussions  which  they 
have  read.  This  defect  has  persisted  for  several  revisions,  and  at- 
tention was  called  to  it  by  late  Chairman  Remington  in  his  report 
to  the  last  Decennial  Convention.  I  feel  it  necessary  at  this  point 
to  quote  his  remarks  upon  this  subject  verbatim: 
"The  Pharmacopoeia  is  a  composite  work  and  one  of  the  defects 
in  the  last  revision  was  the  fact  that  the  whole  committee  were  ex- 
pected to  vote  upon  questions  of  detail,  the  vote  of  each  member 
having  the  same  value.  This  should  be  changed,  and,  upon  special 
subjects,  the  sub-committee  having  these  in  charge  should  have  much 
greater  weight  in  the  final  decision  than  heretofore.  This  can  be 
done  by  referring,  for  example,  assay  subjects,  which  have  been 
before  the  General  Committee,  back  to  the  sub-committee,  if  neces- 
sary, and  each  member  of  that  committee  might  have  two  votes  on 
the  final  decision,  the  same  rule  to  apply  to  all  sub-committees. 
"Another  way  of  meeting  this  difficulty  would  be  to  allow  any 
member  of  the  General  Committee,  not  especially  posted  upon 
matters  of  detail,  to  transfer  his  right  to  vote  to  a  member  of  the 
sub-committee  in  whom  he  has  confidence.  This  vital  defect  in 
pharmacopoeial  revision  might  then  be  overcome." 
I  beheve  it  would  be  well  for  the  Convention  this  time  to  give 
some  very  careful  thought  to  this  subject  and  to  issue  binding  in- 
structions to  the  incoming  Committee  covering  this  very  important 
phase  of  the  work.  For  example,  it  certainly  is  exclusively  the 
province  of  the  medical  members  of  the  Revision  Committee  to  de- 
cide what  substances  should  be  officially  included  for  remedial 
purposes,  and  this  list,  after  having  been  decided  upon  by  the  physi- 
cians, should  not  be  subject  to  review  or  alteration  by  pharmacists 
and  chemists.    On  the  other  hand,  when  the  list  of  official  remedial 
