568 
Editorial. 
\  Am.  Jour.  Phajim. 
\     Dec.  1, 1873. 
all  drug  and  dye  substances  not  grown  or  produced  in  this  country.  We  were 
willing  to  lose  our  Customs  Revenues  to  the  extent  of  millions  of  dollars  an- 
nually, in  order  to  benefit  and  protect  the  people,  and  certainly  have  no  need 
and  no  right  to  collect  it  now  in  the  shape  of  an  internal  tax. 
Feeling  sure  you  will  agree  with  me,  and  awaiting  your  reply,  I  am 
Yours  very  truly, 
(Signed)  Leonard  Myers. 
Hon.  J.  W.  Douglass,  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenve. 
Treasury  Department,  *} 
Office  of  Commissioner  of  Int.  Revenue,  > 
Washington,  October  15,  1873.  J 
Sir. — 1  have  received  your  letter  of  \he  12th  inst.  enclosing  six  labels,  which 
you  state  are  samples  of  labels  used  by  your  constituent,  James  Kenworthy, 
Esq..  Druggist,  which  he  affixes  to  certaiu  medicinal  articles  which  he  puts  up* 
for  sale,  made,  compounded  or  prepared  according  to  formulas  laid  down  in 
the  U.  S.  Dispensatory,  and  which  he  fears  may  be  regarded  by  the  revenue 
officers  as  rendering  said  articles  liable  to  stamp  tax  under  the  construction 
given  to  the  law  in  a  letter  from  this  office  addressed  to  Supervisor  Tutton, 
September  9th. 
You  state  it  to  be  your  own  opinion  that  these  labels  do  not  render  the  arti- 
cles liable  to  tax,  for  the  reason  that  "  none  of  these  preparations  are  new,  or 
secret,  or  proprietary  or  patent,  or  alleged  to  have  any  specified  proprietary 
claim  to  merit  or  to  any  peculiar  advantage  in  mode  of  preparation,"  etc.,  and 
there/ore  you  conclude  that  "  they  are  not  put  up  in  a  style  or  manner  similar 
to  that  of  a  patent  or  proprietary  medicine  in  general." 
You  further  state  that  if  these  articles  are  taxable,  then  half  the  medicines  • 
which  the  people  must  buy  are  so  taxable — an  imposition  of  duty  just  the  re- 
verse of  what  Congress  intended. 
Encbsed  I  send  you  a  pamphlet  just  issued  from  this  office  upon  the  subject 
of  stamp  tax  under  Schedule  C.  This  pamphlet  embodies  the  views  of  this 
office  after  careful  and  mature  consideration  of  the  entire  subject.  Trusting 
that  this  special  circular  will  fully  answer  the  enquiries  contained  in  your  letter 
with  regard  to  the  use  of  labels,  like  the  samples,  I  have  only  to  remark  fur- 
ther that  1  have  not  the  remotest  desire  or  intention  of  depriving  any  person 
or  persons  engaged  in  the  business  of  making,  preparing,  compounding  or  vend- 
ing medicines  or  medicinal  articles  of  the  utmost  exemptions  which  the  law 
gives  them  ;  and  I  ouly  ask  that  they  will  not,  as  your  constituent  seems  to  me 
to  have  done,  deprive  themselves  of  any  rights  to  such  exemptions,  which  the 
law  otherwise  intended  them  to  have  by  putting  up  ordinary  common  and  per- 
fectly well  known  medicines  and  medicinal  articles  without  any  proprietary 
claim  to  merit — medicines  manufactured  strictly  in  accordance  with  formulas 
published  in  standard  medical  authorities,  in  a  style  or  manner  similar  to 
patent  or  proprietary  medicines  in  general. 
Just  to  the  extent  that  Congress  intended  to  exempt  all  such  articles,  what- 
ever might  have  been  the  motive,  I  desire  that  they  shall  be  exempted.  What 
Congress  actually  did  intend,  I  can  judge  of  only  from  the  language  of  the  stat- 
ute. Where  that  declares  that  "  nothing  in  this  section  (section  13  of  the  Act 
of  July  13,  1866,  and  the  only  section  of  law  now  in  force  granting  any  exemp- 
tion whatever)  shall  be  construed  to  exempt  from  stamp  tax  any  medicinal 
articles,  whether  simple  or  compounded  by  any  rule,  authority  or  formula, 
published  or  unpublished,  which  are  put  up  in  a  style  or  manner  similar  to 
that  ot  patent  or  proprietary  medicines  in  general."  I  conclude  that  it  was 
the  intention  to  tax  all  medicines,  no  matter  how  simple,  how  common,  how 
well-known  or  by  whom  used,  that  were  put  up  in  such  style.  If  that  is  not  a 
plain  and  logical  inference,  then  I  must  confess  that  I  am  unable  to  compre- 
hend what  the  language  does  mean. 
