566 
Editorial. 
f  Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
\     Dec.  1, 1878. 
He  explains  in  his  Special  Circular,  No.  145,  paragraphic, — just  issued, — 
what  he  means  by  a  style  and  manner  similar  to  patent  medicines,  and  well  has 
he  described  what  an  ordinary  druggist  would  recognize  as  a  proprietary  or 
quack  medicine.    For  instance,  to  quote 
"The  leading  points  or  characteristics  of  this  style  are  (a),  that  such  medirunes  are  al" 
most  always  pat  up  in  retail  packages,  packages  which  are  sold  with  their  contents,  directly  to  the 
consumer;  and  (b)  each  package  is  accompanied  with  a  label,  a  handbill,  or  a  wrapper,  contain- 
ing an  enumeration  of  the  diseases  or  affections  for  which  the  medicine  is  a  i  emedy  or  a  spe- 
cific ;  containing,  alt-o,  directions  as  to  when  and  how  it  is  to  be  taken,  what  constitutes  a  proper 
dose,  how  frequently  such  doses  are  to  be  taken,  etc..  with  such  general  directions  with  regard 
to  the  mode  of  administering  the  medicine  as  physicians  give  when  called  to  prescribe  for  a  pa- 
tient. It  is  a  style,  adapted  to  popular  sale  and  use,  to  enable  the  sick  to  supply  themselves  with 
remedies,  and  to  use  the  s?me  without  the  aid  or  advice  of  a  physician  or  medical  practitioner. 
Medicines  and  medicinal  preparations,  whether  officinal  or  non-officinal,  by  whatever  rule  or  au- 
thority, or  formula  compounded,  put  up  in  such  a  style,  in  retail  packages,  and  accompanied  with 
ft  label,  a  cireu'ar,  or  a  wrapper,  giving  the  disease,  diseases,  or  affections  for  which  such  medi- 
cines are  to  be  or  have  been  applied  or  used,  directions  how  to  use,  etc.,  are  liable  to  stamp  tax 
under  Schedule  C.  The  law  makes  no  provision  for  exempting  such  medicines,  but  expressly 
declares  that  the  statute  shall  not  be  construed  so  as  to  give  exemption. ' 
Now,  then,  what  consistency  is  there  here,  when  he  takes  so  much  trouble 
and  uses  so  much  Government  ink,  to  state  in  detail  all  the  points  that  go 
towards  making  a  medicine  proprietary  or  patent,  constituting  a  "similarity  in 
etyle."  and  then  rules  that  simple  laudanum,  if  not  put  up  in  retail  packages, 
but  dispensed  from  a  larger  bottle  over  the  counter  as  needed,  if  not  having 
on  it  a  label,  handbill  or  wrapper,  containing  an  enumeration  of  the  diseases 
or  affections  for  which  the  medicine  is  a  remedy  or  specinc  ;  but  if  it  merely 
contains  on  it  the  name  and  proper  dose,  without  which  no  careful  dispenser 
would  sell  it,  it  is  declared  to  be  liable  to  tax.  Does  he  rule  that  an  offence 
in  one  particular  renders  the  offender  guilty  of  all? 
Patent  medicines  have  corks  in  them  (for  the  convenience  of  the  public),  so 
have  officinal  medicines  ;  Schenck's  Fills  and  Seidlitz  Powders  are  both  put 
into  a  box,  and  in  this  particular  they  are  "similar  in  style;"  yet  who  could  not 
tell  which,  in  the  meaning  of  the  Act  of  July  13th,  1866.  was  exempt? 
No  doubt  the  Commissioner's  answer  to  this  would  be,  You  supply  the  public 
with  the  means  of  curing  themselves  of  some  disease  or  other  without  calling 
in  a  physician.  For  this  privilege  the  Government  of  the  United  States  suffers 
to  the  extent  of  one  cent  on  every  twenty-five  cents  or  under,  and  you  must 
pay  for  it. 
As  instances,  a  number  of  labels  for  special  preparations  were  cited  by  the 
Committee,  such  as  14  Epsom  Halts — one  dose."  "Castor  Oil — one  dose," — ■ 
both  require  stamps;  "Seidlitz  Powders" — on  this  label  the  Commissioner 
and  his  assistant  differed  in  judgment.  One  said  that  the  ordinary  directions, 
44  Put  the  contents  of  a  white  paper  into  half  a  tumblerful  of  water,  and  the 
contents  of  a  blue  paper  into  another  half  a  tumblerful  of  water;  mix  the  two 
and  drink,"  *fec,  &c,  did  not  indicate  the  dose  and  directions. 
We  immediately  took  exception  to  this,  of  course,  as  the  contents  of  the  two 
papers  is  the  dose  ;  and,  if  the  other  rulings  are  just,  Seidlitz  powders  form  no 
exception,  and  must  be  classed  with  them. 
The  Committee  at  last,  finding  it  was  useless  to  prolong  the  discussion,  re- 
tired. It  was  first  proposed  to  stay  over  in  Washington  and  await  the  produc- 
tion of  a  Circular  that  was  then  going  through  the  press,  but  it  was  concluded 
that  it  wou'd  be  of  no  avail  to  further  engage  in  controversy,  and  having  just 
enough  time  to  go  to  the  hotel,  obtain  our  baggage  and  pay  our  bills,  aad  catch 
the  train,  we  shook  off  the  dust  of  the  city  of  magnificent  distances  in  indigna- 
tion, feeling  that  Our  profession  had  a  gross  indiguity  heaped  upon  it,  in  that 
we  should  be  classed  with  quacks,  charlatans  and  rum  sellers. 
Robt.  Shokmaker, 
Joseph  P.  Remington. 
October  20th,  1873. 
The  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Philadelphia  Drug  Exchange  is  equally 
