20 
Revision  of  Pharmacopoeia. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
Jan.,  187s. 
exceptions  to  the  genera]  rule,  and  are  eminently  fitted  for  such  a  posi- 
tion, and  if  the  other  medical  gentlemen  composing  the  Committee  had 
like  opportunities  with  these,  and  their  special  studies  had  in  like  man- 
ner qualified  them  for  the  duties  of  the  position,  then  my  remarks,  will, 
in  a  measure,  lose  their  pertinence.  But,  in  any  event,  the  majotity 
of  our  Revisory  Committee  should  be  practical  pharmacists,  who  under- 
stand and  fully  appreciate  the  needs  of  their  profession,  and  whose 
every-dav  practical  experience  at  the  dispensing  counter  and  in  the 
laboratory  has  qualified  them  to  devise,  modify  and  improve  formulas, 
processes,  etc.,  and  these,  too,  should  be  men  who  are  intelligent,  in- 
dustrious, energetic  and  progressive  ;  not  the  old  fogies  or  fossils  of  the 
profession.  They  should  also  be  men  who  are  not  afraid  to  work,  and 
whose  hearts  are  in  the  work,  and  who  feel  a  pride  in  seeing  it  well 
done. 
Of  course,  the  medical  profession  are  interested  in  the  work,  and 
their  aid  in  investigating  and  pronouncing  upon  the  claims  and  fitness 
of  new  remedies,  and  the  merits  of  old,  unofficinai  and  the  various 
semi  -officinal  remedies  that  are  constantly  seeking  admission  into  the 
great  familv  of  officinal  articles  and  preparations,  is  of  importance.  It 
is,  therefore,  proper  that  the  medical  bodies  in  the  different  sections  of 
the  countrv  should  be  represented  and  consulted  in  the  matter,  through 
their  official  representatives,  who  can  present  the  claims  of  their  respec- 
tive localities  in  the  Committee. 
But,  to  make  the  majority  of  the  Committee  to  consist  of  medical 
men,  I  consider  wrong  and  most  unjust  to  the  pharmaceutical  profes- 
sion, for  whose  use  the  work  is  especially  intended.  It  is  a  work  with 
the  pharmacist  of  everv-day  reference  and  his  guide  in  his  manipulations 
in  all  officinal  preparations.  Physicians  have  but  little  to  do  with  it, 
and  there  are,  I  have  no  doubt,  hundreds  of  them  that  never  see  the 
work  after  it  is  published,  and  some,  perhaps,  that  hardly  know  of  its 
existence. 
If  it  is  necessary  to  have  nine  physicians  in  the  Committee  of  Revi- 
sion, in  order  to  properly  represent  the  interests  of  the  medical  profes- 
sion, would  it  not  be  better  to  increase  the  membership  of  the  Com- 
mittee to  twenty-five  instead  of  fifteen,  as  heretofore,  and  make  it  con- 
sist of  sixteen  pharmacists  and  nine  physicians  ?  This  would  place  the 
majoritv  on  the  right  side,  and  give  the  Committee  a  working  force  of 
sufficient  capacity  for  effective  service. 
The  meagre  and  imperfect  aid  given  to  the  Committee  of  Revision 
