622 
Editorial. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm 
Dec,  1879. 
Thus  far  the  draft  of  an  international  pharmacopoeia  has  become  known,  only,  we 
believe,  through  a  paper  read  by  Mr.  Francis  Sutton  before  the  Pharmaceutical 
Society  of  Great  Britain  in  1875  (see  "Amer.  Jour.  Phar.,"  1875,  P-  I3^)»  and  from 
the  features  described  it  appears  that  the  aim  is  directed  towards  a  universal  phar- 
macopoeia, which  should  f>e  recognized  in  all  civilized  countries.  At  the  second 
Pharmaceutical  Congress,  held  at  Paris  in  1867,  this  project  had  been  discussed, 
and  was  adopted  by  the  votes  of  all  the  delegates  present  except  those  from  the 
United  States  (Great  Britain  was  not  represented),  for  reasons  which  were  embodied 
in  a  report  sent  to  the  American  Pharmaceutical  Association,  and  also  one  read 
before  the  Philadelphia  College  of  Pharmacy  ("Amer.  Jour.  Pilar.,"  1867,  p.  561). 
One  of  the  reasons  of  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  American  delegation,  viz.,  the  great 
difference  in  strength  of  some  important  preparations  in  various  countries,  furnishes 
one  of  the  most  urgent  arguments  in  favor  of  the  project  of  **  uniformity  in  medicine." 
Tinctura  opii,  for  instance,  differs  more  or  less,  as  furnished  upon  a  physician's  pre- 
scription in  the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  France  and  Germany;  there  is  no 
reason  why  under  this  name  the  same  preparation  should  not  be  obtained  in  any 
country.  But  each  country  has  important  remedies  which  are  little  or  not  at  all 
known  in  other  countries,  and  a  universal  pharmacopoeia  will,  in  our  opinion,  on 
that  account  be  impossible  for  many  years  to  come,  unless  the  same  would  confine 
itself  to  the  principal  and  most  active  medicines  used  in  every  country,  and  leave  to 
each  nation  or  section  the  choice  of  other  remedies  of  less  importance  which  may  be 
known  in  that  locality.  The  views  expressed  by  Prof.  Redwood  in  1875  are  nearly 
the  same  entertained  by  us,  and  which  may  be  concisely  stated  as  being  in  opposi- 
tion to  a  universal^  but  in  favor  of  an  international  pharmacopoeia. 
In  this  connection  we  may  be  permitted  to  refer  to  a  paper  by  Dr.  C.  H.  Thomas 
(see  "Amer.  Jour.  Pilar.,"  1874,  P-  3T7)>  advocating  such  measures  for  the  har- 
monizing of  the  British  and  United  States  Pharmacopoeias;  and  we  believe  that  the 
same  views  may  be  made  to  apply  to  the  pharmacopoeias  of  all  other  countries. 
While  a  perfect  uniformity  of  nomenclature  seems  to  be  impossible  at  present,  it  is 
still  feasible  that  under  well-known  synonyms  only  identical  preparations  should  be 
dispensed,  and  that  the  same  name  should  not,  in  different  countries,  have  a  different 
meaning  as  regards  composition  and  strength,  at  least  in  those  cases  where  the  more 
active  medicines  are  concerned. 
The  Pennsylvania  Patent  Medicine  Tax. — In  addition  to  the  decision  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  Pittsburg,  which  we  published  on  page  107  of  the 
present  volume,  we  have  to  record  a  similar  decision  in  Philadelphia,  in  the  case  of 
the  Commonwealth  vs.  C.  L   Mitchell,  which  was  taken  before  Recorder  Lane  b 
the  Druggists1  Trade  Association.    The  action  was  brought  under  the  act  of  Apri 
10th,  1849,  f°r  l'le  recovery  of  the  amount  due  for  a  license  as  vender  of  patent 
medicines  ;  and  it  was  decided  by  the  Recorder,  on  October  2d,  that  the  defendan 
having  paid  a  license  as  a  vender  of  drugs  and  medicines,  under  the  Act  of  April 
7th,  1830,  was  not  liable  to  be  assessed  under  the  Act  of  1849,  and  judgment  was- 
given  accordingly. 
