Am.  Jour.  Pharm. ) 
April,  1876.  J 
The  Pill  Subject. 
163 
My  critic's  next  subject  of  attack — the  object  of  the  representation 
of  the  cut  of  the  pill  machine  for  making  the  third-rate  pill — is  best 
answered  by  quoting  from  the  original  paper  the  statement,  which  is  (re- 
ferring to  the  compressed  pill),  that 
"  The  powerful  pressure,  often  brought  to  bear  to  cause  the  dry  materials  to  co- 
here, often  operates  unfavorably  in  this  variety  of  pill,  except  in  a  few  instances 
where  the  ingredient  is  readily  soluble,  as  bisulphate  quinia,  bromide  or  iodide  of 
potassium,  etc.,  etc. 
"  It  may  not  be  known  that  this  variety  can  be  made  readily  by  the  pharmacist 
himself,  if  he  so  desires,  by  having  a  mechanic  make  a  simple  piece  of  apparatus. 
"  Take  a  solid  cylinder  of  iron,"  etc.,  etc., 
and  then  follows  a  description  of  how  to  make  a  pill-press. 
How  my  friend  can  construe  the  above,  so  as  to  cause  him  to  make 
the  statement,  "  That  Mr.  Remington  really  intended  to  endorse  the 
compressed  pills  as  superior  to  all  other  ready-made  pills  of  our  day," 
is  a  mystery. 
My  friend  objects  to  the  opinion  advanced  that  the  pressure  used  in 
making  a  compressed  pill  interferes  with  its  solubility,  and  puts  forward 
a  microscopical  examination  to  prove  his  position,  and  he  finds  that 
under  the  microscope  they  are  quite  porous.  What  does  "  quite 
porous  "  mean,  were  the  pores  measured  by  a  micrometer  ?  Did  he 
try  the  plain,  sugar-coated  or  gelatin- coated  pill,  under  the  same 
power,  for  relative  porosity,  and,  if  so,  why  were  the  results  not 
given.  The  fact  is  that  pores  are  very  plainly  visible  {without  the  use 
of  the  microscope),  when  either  the  plain,  sugar-coated  or  gelatin- 
coated  pills  are  broken  open,  as  any  one  may  prove  easily. 
The  last  point  which  my  neighbor  finds  fault  with  is  the  simple 
process  of  shaking,  employed  by  the  writer. 
It  was  not  pretended  that  the  pills  were  subjected  to  exactly  this 
method  of  treatment  when  in  the  stomach,  but  it  was  believed  that  if 
"  fair  samples  of  the  best  pills  that  the  market  afforded  "  were  placed 
in  various  liquids,  and  all  agitated  in  a  similar  manner,  that  a  tolerably 
fair  comparative  test  would  be  afforded.  Yet,  how  inconsistent  is  my 
friend.  He  objects  to  agitation,  and  yet  attaches  four  bottles,  loaded 
with  quinia  pills  and  water,  to  the  eccentric  rod  of  an  upright  steam- 
engine,  speeded  up  to  350  revolutions  a  minute,  and  of  course  it  ends 
in  bringing  out  his  favorite  so-called  patent  pill  ahead  of  all  others  ; 
but  does  he  not  entirely  stultify  his  results  by  his  next  few  sentences, 
when  he  says  "  the  digestive  process  of  the  stomach  is  not  agitation, 
but  more  properly  a  churning  or  circulatory  displacement  process,  quiet 
but  continuous  in  its  mode  of  operation "  ?  Would  it  not  follow 
most  naturally  that  if  these  were  his  conscientious  views  on  the  sub- 
ject of  digestive  or  peristaltic  action,  that,  instead  of  the  eccentric  rod 
of  an  upright  steam-engine,  speeded  up  to  350  revolutions  a  minute, 
the  proper  apparatus  would  have  been  an  old-fashioned  churn  revolving 
once,  say,  in  '350  minutes,  quiet  and  continuous  in  its  mode  of  opera- 
tion, or  a  circulatory  displacer  ? 
