474        Education  and  Legislation  in  Pharmacy.  {A*ocfoberf%!m' 
there  is  no  longer  any  scientific  or  technical  work  for  the  pharmacist 
to  do.  Many  of  them  laugh  at  the  idea  that  technical  education  is 
necessary  in  their  business.  They  declare  that  higher  educational 
requirements  only  increase  their  expenses  by  diminishing  the  supply 
of  clerks. 
I  am  sure  the  real  evils  we  suffer  from  can  be  remedied  to  a  great 
extent  by  a  reasonable  interpretation  and  enforcement  of  most  of 
our  existing  laws. 
It  is  impossible  to  prevent  excessive  competition  in  the  drug  busi- 
ness except  by  establishing  higher  educational  requirements  for  the 
license  to  open  or  conduct  a  pharmacy,  while  the  remedy  for  the 
scarcity  of  drug  clerks  lies  in  a  rational  recognition  of  the  difference 
between  principals  and  clerks.  We  cannot  eat  the  cake  and  keep 
it,  too.  Every  pharmacy  law  which  recognizes  only  one  class  or 
grade  of  pharmacists  must  inevitably  work  injury  to  the  public  as 
well  as  to  the  pharmaceutical  profession,  for  if  the  standard  of  edu- 
cation under  such  a  law  is  high  enough  to  really  check  the  multi- 
plication of  drug  stores  a  scarcity  of  clerks  will  be  the  unavoidable 
result,  whereas,  if  the  educational  requirements  for  license  are  low 
enough  to  provide  an  abundance  of  clerks,  these  clerks  will  rapidly 
become  proprietors  by  starting  new  stores.  Every  pharmacy  law 
should,  therefore,  recognize  both  principals  and  clerks  and  should 
establish  higher  educational  qualifications  for  the  license  which  con- 
fers the  right  to  open  or  conduct  drug  stores  than  for  a  license  to 
practice  as  an  assistant  or  clerk. 
But  we  find  that  in  States  where  the  pharmacy  laws  do  make  a 
distinction  between  registered  pharmacists  and  registered  assistant 
pharmacists  there  is  nevertheless  an  excessive  number  of  pharma- 
cists and  a  ridiculously  small  number  of  assistants.  The  reason 
must  be  that  it  is  too  easy  to  secure  the  higher  license.  Many  State 
Board  members  have  begun  to  realize  this  and  are  striving  to  "  make 
the  examinations  stifTer." 
I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a  few  facts.  To  make  these  facts 
clearer  I  shall  call  registered  pharmacists  "  druggists  "  and  assistant 
pharmacists  "  clerks."  Do  you  know  that  in  the  State  of  Indiana 
there  are  nearly  two  druggists  to  every  drug  store  and  about  one- 
fifth  of  one  clerk  ?  In  Illinois  two  druggists  and  one-third  of  a 
clerk.  In  Ohio  one  and  one-half  druggists  and  one-third  of  a  clerk. 
Not  one  State  have  I  found  in  which  the  proportion  of  assistant 
