Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  ) 
Feb.,  1879.  J 
Editorial. 
Henry  S.  Wellcome,  Ph.G.  Most  of  the  Alumni  and  several  prominent  gentlemen, 
of  San  Francisco  were  present.  The  re -union  was  a  very  pleasant  one,  and  after 
justice  had  been  done  to  the  repast  prepared  for  the  occasion,  reminiscences  of  college 
life  were  related  and  toasts  proposed  to  various  gentlemen  who  held  or  still  hold 
prominent  positions  in  the  American  Pharmaceutical  Association  or  in  the  College, 
of  which  nearly  all  the  participants  are  graduates. 
EDITORIAL  DEPARTMENT. 
The    Pennsylvania  Patent  Medicine  Tax  In  our  last  issue    (page  57)  we 
have  given  an  account  of  the  decision  recently  rem'ered  in  Pittsburg  concerning 
this  tax.  We  have  since  been  favored  with  a  copy  of  the  Pittsburg  Legal  Journal 
of  January  1st,  1879,  m  which  we  find  a  fuller  report,  from  which  it  appears  that 
the  question  was  decided  by  t-ivo  courts,  and  on  account  of  its  importance  to  our 
readers  in  Pennsylvania  we  insert  it  in  full  : 
Common  Pleas  Nos.  1  and  2. 
Simon  Johnston,  Plaintiff  in  error,  v.  Commonwealth,  Defendant  in  error;  and 
Joseph  Abel,  Plaintiff  in  error,  v.  Commonwealth,  Defendant  in  error. 
These  were  actions  brought  by  the  Treasurer  of  Allegheny  county  in  the  name 
of  the  Commonwealth,  against  the  said  plaintiffs  in  error  to  recover  an  additional 
Mercantile  License  for  the  sale  of  patent  medicines,  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Act  of  April  10th,  1849,  il  2 5  a"d 
The  plaintiffs  in  error  are  apothecaries,  and,  with  a  number  of  others  in  the  same 
business,  were  assessed  by  the  Mercantile  Appraiser  for  said  license,  but  refused  to 
pay,  whereupon  actions  were  brought  against  all  of  them  before  various  aldermen,, 
and  judgment  obtained  in  favor  of  the  Commonwealth.  The  actions  were  then 
removed  by  certiorari — the  former,  with  others,  into  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
No.  2.  They  came  up  on  the  last  argument  list  in  each  of  said  courts,  and  after 
argument  the  judgments  of  the  aldermen  were  reversed  by  both  courts,  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  above  mentioned  Act  of  1849,  which  imposed  such  additional  license,, 
was  repealed  by  the  Act  of  April  22d,  1858,  $  9.  (P.  L.  1858,  pages  468-70.) 
The  Court  of  Common  Pleas  No.  2  (Judges  Ewing  and  Kirkpatrick),  in  decid- 
ing the  matter,  expressed  the  further  opinion  that  even  if  the  Act  of  1849  na^  not 
been  repealed,  the  plaintiffs  in  error  would  not  have  been  liable,  as  that  act  itself 
clearly  excepted  regular  apothecaries  from  its  operation. 
Alfred  Kerr,  Esq.,  for  plaintiffs  in  error. 
The  Preparation  of  Pepsin.— In  the  Southern  Medical  Record,  issued  December 
20,  1878,  a  paper  by  Jos.  Adolphu^,  M.  D.,  is  published  on  the  preparation  of  pep- 
sin and  the  good  to  be  obtained  from  it,  which  commences  as  follows: 
In  1872  I  read  an  interesting  paper  on  the  preparation  of  pepsin,  by  an  American 
author  whose  name  I  have  unfortunately  forgotten.  The  simplicity  of  the  process, 
the  way  of  obtaining  the  ferment  according  to  the  manipulations  of  this  method,  so 
impressed  my  attention  as  to  fasten  itself  on  my  memory. 
We  call  the  attention  of  the  writer  to  the  fact  that  the  process,  which  is  imper- 
fectly described  by  him,  originated  with  Prof.  E.  Scheffer,  of  Louisville,  and  was 
published  in  the  February  number  of  the  "American  Journal  of  Pharmacy"  for  1872.. 
