^  January  iQif"' }  American  Pharmaceutical  Association.  41 
use  totally  different  medicines,  for  which  the  Pharmacopoeia  of  the 
United  States  should  furnish  standards. 
Prof.  1.  V.  S.  Stanislaus,  of  Philadelphia,  asserted  that  the  paper 
by  Dr.  Wiley  had  been  to  him  a  revelation  and  a  treat  true  and  rare. 
He  had  been  particularly  impressed  by  the  reference  to  needless 
duplication  of  drugs  having  similar  properties  and  willingly  endorsed 
the  proposition  to  delete  useless  duplications  from  the  Pharmaco- 
poeia. 
He  pointed  out  that  the  content  of  previous  pharmacopoeias 
represented  the  selection  and  dictates  of  the  few  and  not  of  the  many 
and  expressed  the  hope  that  in  the  forthcoming  Pharmacopoeia 
greater  care  be  exercised  regarding  admissions  and  deletions. 
Dr.  Murray  Gait  Hotter,  the  Secretary  of  the  Pharmacopoeia! 
Convention,  discussed  a  number  of  the  more  important  points  em- 
bodied in  the  able,  comprehensive  and  timely  paper  by  Dr.  Wiley 
and  pointed  out  more  particularly  that  the  work  and  the  function  of 
the  Executive  Committee,  as  outlined  by  Dr.  Wiley,  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  intent  and  purpose  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the 
former  Convention. 
He  also  pointed  out  that  the  professional  representation  on  the 
General  Committee  of  Revision  was  not  alone  interesting  but  rather 
sienificant.  Of  the  total  number  34  (indeed  35  when  a  vacancy  was 
filled)  were  nominees  of  the  pharmaceutical  caucus  and  but  16  were 
nominees  of  the  medical  caucus.  Of  the  latter  it  is  also  interesting 
to  note  that  only  2  reached  the  executive  committee. 
In  connection  with  the  scope  of  the  Pharmacopoeia  he  pointed 
out  t^iat  the  Pharmacopoeial  Convention,  by  a  vote  of  95  to  47, 
emDhatically  recorded  its  conviction  that  substances  "  whose  value 
and  use  have  not  been  established  should  not  be  included.  And 
then,  on  the  plea  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  hamper  the  Committee 
elected  for  the  purpose  of  carefully  selectino-  the  list  of  substances, 
the  Convention  was  induced  to  strike  out,  bv  a  vote  of  123  to  40,  this 
"  ambiguous  and  dansferous  provision  "  thus  leaving  the  final  decis- 
ion rep-arding  scope  with  the  members  of  the  General  Committee 
of  Revision. 
With  reference  to  the  business  of  the  Pharmacopoeial  Convention 
he  Jtsserted  that  it  had  been  pointed  out  by  several  observers  that 
"  the  financial  statement  made  to  the  Convention  was  in  no  wise 
satisfactory,  explicit,  or  in  iustice  to  the  intelligence  of  the  body 
to  which  it  was  delivered.''  Tn  commenting  on  "  the  enormous  sales 
of  the  book  nmounting  to  nearlv  40,000  copies  the  first  year,"  he 
