3oo 
Notes  and  News. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharrn. 
June,  1903. 
Justice  Potter,  in  his  opinion,  says: 
"We  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  evidence  was  not  sufficient  to  support  a 
finding  that  the  corporation  itself  was  to  be  one  for  profit.  There  was  proof 
that  the  individual  healers  who  are  constituted  and  sent  out  by  the  society  do 
receive  compensation  for  their  services,  but  this  seems  to  be  a  personal  recom- 
pense, with  which  the  society  has  nothing  to  do. 
"But  the  Court  below,  in  its  supplemental  opinion,  went  beyond  this  ques- 
tion, and  adopted  in  substance  the  conclusion  of  the  master,  that  the  practice 
of  the  art  of  healing  or  curing  disease  in  the  manner  set  forth  in  Mrs.  Eddy's 
book  is  injurious  to  the  community,  because  it  is  opposed  to  the  general  policy 
of  the  law  of  Pennsylvania  relative  to  the  existence  and.  treatment  of  disease. 
"  It  was  the  duty  of  the  Court  below  to  refuse  the  charter  if  in  the  exercise 
of  sound  legal  discretion  he  found  its  purpose,  in  whole  or  part,  included 
anything  injurious  to  the  community. 
"  Under  the  well-defined  policy  of  the  law  of  Pennsylvania,  as  at  present 
existing,  we  are  satisfied  that  there  was  no  abuse  of  sound  legal  discretion  in 
refusing  the  application  for  a  charter." 
U.  S.  PharmacopcEia. — Prof.  A.  B.  Prescott,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Pharmacy  and  Queries  of  the  Michigan  State  Pharmaceutical  Association, 
says  ; 
What  is  required  of  the  profession  of  pharmacy  is  indicated  and  measured  by 
the  scope  of  the  Pharmacopoeia.  This  work  is  not  the  cause,  but  rather  the 
consequence  of  advancement  in  pharmacy.  It  registers  not  the  high-water 
mark  of  science  alone,  but  the  high  average  level  of  the  utilization  of  science, 
the  level  of  the  drug  business  of  the  world.  The  Pharmacopoeia  is  always  in 
sore  need  of  the  latest  and  most  exact  of  the  determinations  of  science.  In 
whatever  country  it  has  a  place,  it  is  made  up  of  statements  and  definitions, 
some  of  which  must  have  been  made  with  hesitation,  if  not  with  fear  and  tremb- 
ling. 
The  standards  of  the  Pharmacopoeia  must  follow  rather  than  lead  in  the  best 
practice  for  the  production  and  supply  of  medicinal  agents.  No  committee  of 
revision  dare  say  that  they  will  admit  into  the  Pharmacopoeia  just  the  best 
medicines  and  these  alone.  They  will  admit  the  medicines  most  used  in  the 
practice  of  the  larger  number  of  reputable  physicians,  as  no  committee  of 
revision  can  require  that  medicines  must  be  of  this  or  that  ideal  standard  in 
perfection  of  manufacture — regardless  of  existing  limitations  and  the  actual 
relations  of  cause  and  effect  in  the  world  at  large.  The  term  absolutely  pure 
belongs  to  the  language  of  the  tyro  and  the  boaster.  If  exact  analyses  were 
more  widely  made,  precise  limits  of  purity  would  be  less  freely  declared.  It 
takes  a  good  deal  of  scientific  work  to  cure  the  dogmatism  of  so-called  scien- 
tific statements.  The  Pharmacopoeia  of  1900  will  have  to  meet  with  a  test 
severer  than  any  applied  to  its  predecessors,  the  test  of  the  enforcement  of  its 
standards  in  the  courts  of  law.  Of  this  the  committee  of  the  present  revision 
are  surely  aware,  and  for  this,  without  doubt,  they  are  making  provision  by 
the  wisdom  and  conservatism  of  their  policy. 
