Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  1 
June,  1911.  J 
Pharmac en t ical  L egisla tio n . 
copoeia  or  the  American  Homoeopathic  Dispensatory  and  the  follow- 
ing five  clauses  enacted  covering-  the  possible  ways  in  which  the 
adulteration  might  occur,  i.e.: 
1.  If  any  substance  or  substances  have  been  mixed  with  it  so 
as  to  depreciate  and  weaken  its  strength,  purity  or  quality. 
2.  If  any  quality,  substance  or  ingredient  be  abstracted  so  as 
to  deteriorate  or  affect  injuriously  the  quality  or  potency  of  the 
said  drug. 
3.  If  any  inferior  or  cheaper  substance  or  substances  have  been 
substituted  in  whole  or  part  for  it. 
4.  If  it  is  an  imitation  or  is  sold  under  the  name  of  another 
drug. 
5.  If  the  drug  shall  be  so  altered  that  the  nature,  quality,  sub- 
stance, commercial  value  or  medicinal  value  of  it  will  not  correspond 
to  the  recognized  formulae  or  tests  of  the  latest  edition  of  the 
National  Formulary,"  or  of  the  "  Pharmacopoeia  of  the  United 
States,"  or  the  "  American  Homoeopathic  Pharmacopoeia,"  or  the 
"American  Homoeopathic  Dispensatory,"  regarding  quality  or  purity. 
Prosecutions  under  this  Act  raised  several  important  questions. 
In  the  first  place  you  will  note  that  the  drug  must  correspond  in 
all  respects  tO'  the  recognized  formula  or  tests  of  the  latest  edition 
of  the  several  authorities  mentioned.  Counsel  seeking  to  make 
defense  for  their  client  charged  with  violation  of  this  Act  asserted 
that  the  Act  was  unconstitutional  for  several  reasons,  first,  because 
it  incorporated  into  the  law  a  series  of  books  hence  the  public  were 
not  informed  of  the  text  of  the  law  except  by  going  outside  of 
the  statute  books  whereas  Article  3,  Section  6  of  the  Constitution 
provides  "  No  law  shall  be  revived,  amended  or  the  provisions  there- 
of extended  or  conferred  by  reference  to  its  title  only  and  so  much 
thereof  as  is  revived,  amended,  extended  or  conferred  shall  be  re- 
enacted  and  published  at  length."  In  considering  their  objection 
the  court  held  that  the  Act  referred  to  certain  well-known  medical 
books  as  standards  for  the  definition  of  the  word  drug  and  also 
for  the  definition  of  that  which  shall  be  deemed  an  adulteration  of 
a  drug,  that  this  was  not  in  any  sense  an  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  Legislature  to  revive  or  amend  a  law  or  to  extend  or  confer  the 
provisions  thereof  by  reference  to  title  only.  That  where  im- 
practicable either  to  publish  at  length  the  Court  would  not  consider 
reference  of  this  character  unconstitutional. 
Again,  it  was  argued  that  the  act  delegated  the  power  of  making 
