Am.  Jonr.  Pharm.i 
April,  1890.  J 
Editorial. 
203 
prescription  ;  that  a  druggist  is  to  be  commended  who  is  cautious  in  such  mat- 
ters, and  that  he  is  not  liable  in  a  suit  for  damages  under  the  circumstances 
unless  he  acts  maliciously.  The  Judge  further  said,  there  is  no  law  which 
obliges  a  druggist  to  sell  drugs  to  any  man.  The  druggist  was  discharged  on 
common  bail,  that  is,  on  his  own  recognizance.  We  learn  that  the  case  will 
not  be  continued. 
The  above  gives  the  legal  aspect  of  this  case.  There  is,  however,  also  an 
ethical  side  to  it.  The  action  of  the  clerk,  if  correctly  reported,  was  obviously, 
not  only  hasty,  but  quite  discourteous.  There  is  no  need  to  point  out  to  the 
experienced  apothecary  that  there  is  no  danger,  arising  from  an  insoluble  pre- 
cipitate, if  the  above  prescription  is  carefully  dispensed.  But,  even  if  the 
clerk's  surmise  had  been  correct,  a  different  course  of  action  Would  have  been 
more  becoming. 
The  American  Medical  Association  will  hold  its  forty-first  annual  meeting  in 
the  city  of  Nashville,  commencing  May  20,  and  steps  have  been  taken  for 
having  in  connection  with  the  meeting  an  exhibition  of  pharmaceutic,  surgical 
and  sanitary  products  and  appliances,  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  being 
Dr.  J.  Berrien  Lindsley.  During  the  same  week,  the  Tennessee  Druggists' 
Association  will  hold  its  annual  meeting  likewise  in  Nashville. 
Manufacture  of  Chloroform. — The  following  communication  explains  itself : 
Philadelphia,  March  24,  1890. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  American  Jour,  of  Pharmacy  : 
Dear  Sir. — My  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact,  that  in  my  article  on 
"Chloroform  Manufacture"  in  the  Journal  for  July,  1889,  I  neglected  to 
mention  the  article  of  Orndorff  and  Jessel  {Amer.  Jour.  Chem.,  Sept.,  1888), 
on  "  the  action  of  bleaching  powder  upon  acetone,"  and  so  have  done  them  an 
injustice  in  failing  to  accord  priority  of  discovery  to  them.  I  am  sorry  this 
appearance  of  injustice  was  created  by  my  article,  as  no  slight  was  intended. 
They  are,  of  course,  entitled  to  the  credit  of  first  publishing  an  account  of  the 
chloroform  producing  reaction,  based  upon  experimental  work  of  their  own. 
I  made  no  attempt  to  claim -anything  as  against  them  in  my  article.  However, 
the  reaction,  exactly  as  I  gave  it,  was  known  to  both  the  manufacturers  and 
myself,  and  had  been  discussed  by  us  in  connection  with  patent  litigation,  as 
early  as  March,  1888.  So  I  did  not  think  it  necessary  in  my  account  of  Roessler 
and  Hasslacher's  patents  to  go  out  of  my  way  to  speak  of  Orndorff  and  Jessel's 
study  of  the  reaction.  What  I  published  on  chloroform  production,  in  July,  1889, 
I  could  just  as  well  have  published  in  March,  1888,  except  that  litigation  was 
still  pending  at  that  time.  Very  respectfully, 
SAM'I,  P.  SADTLKR. 
Diuretin,  the  sodio-salicylic  compound  of  theobromine,  is  described  as  a 
white  powder,  containing  50  per  cent,  of  theobromine,  and  dissolving  in  half  its 
weight  of  hot  water  remaining  in  .solution  after  cooling.  Dr.  Gram  {Lancet, 
Jan.  4,  1890,)  states  that  it  produces  strong  diuretic  action  without  affecting  the 
central  nervous  system.    It  is  given  in  gram  doses. 
