138  Editorial  {^"■iTln-'"' 
articles  prepared  by  any  manufacturing  chemist,  pharmaceutist  or  druggist,  in  ac- 
cordance with  a  formula  published  in  any  standard  Dispensatory  or  Pharmacopoeia 
in  common  use  by  physicians  and  apothecaries,  or  in  any  pharmaceutical  journal 
^ssued  by  any  incorporated  college  of  pharmacy,  when  such  formula  and  where 
found  shall  be  distinctly  referred  to  on  the  printed  label  attached  to  such  article, 
and  no  proprietary  interest  therein  is  claimed.  Neither  shall  any  stamp  be  required 
when  the  formula  of  any  medicinal  preparation  shall  be  printed  on  the  label  attached 
to  such  article,  where  no  proprietorship  in  such  preparation  shall  be  claimed." 
Prosecutions  for  Alleged  Adulterations. — Since  the  Adulteration  of  Food 
Act  has  become  a  taw  in  England,  quite  a  number  of  prosecutions  have  taken  place 
under  it,  wilful  adulterations  having  been  shown  in  some  cases,  while  in  some  the 
public  analysts  could  not  agree  as  to  whether  a  substance  found  had  been  added  for 
the  purpose  of  increasing  the  weight.  Recently,  however,  proceedings  were  insti- 
tuted in  two  cases,  which  appear  to  be  so  curious  in  some  of  their  features  that  we 
cannot  refrain  from  laying  them  before  our  readers. 
At  the  Wolverhampton  Borough  Court,  Thomas  Smith,  soda-water  manufacturer, 
was  charged  with  having  sold  adulterated  soda-water.  The  borough  analyst,  E.  W. 
T.  Jones,  after  examining  it  gave  the  following  certificate  :  "The  title  under  which 
this  sample  was  sold  is  quite  a  misnomer  5  it  is  an  anomalous  specimen  altogether, 
containing  no  carbonate  of  soda,  and  hence  devoid  of  the  valuable  properties  peculiar 
to  genuine  soda-water.  Carbonate  of  lime  is  preseyit  in  considerable  quantity,  and  it 
shows  traces  of  copper.  I  consider  it  is  an  adulterated  article,  and  injurious  to 
health."  We  have  italicized  the  portions  which  appear  to  us  the  most  curious,  and 
upon  the  strength  of  which  any  American  manufacturer  of  soda-water  would  be 
liable  to  a  penalty  under  British  laws,  particularly  if  hard  water  had  been  used  in  its 
manufacture,  as  was  shown  to  be  the  case  on  this  occasion.  The  defendant  was  fined 
40J.  and  costs  j  it  is  not  stated  whether  the  fine  was  imposed  on  account  of  the  unde- 
termined traces  of  copper,  the  likewise  undetermined  considerable  quantity  of  car- 
bonate of  calcium,  or  the  total  absence  of  carbonate  of  sodium. 
A  case  of  still  greater  interest  and  importance  was  the  charge  against  John  Hal- 
Lowell  of  having  sold  adulterated  milk  of  sulphur,  tried  at  the  Leeds  Borough  Police 
Court  February  3d.  Our  readers  will  perhaps  remember  the  paper  by  Prof.  Attfield, 
on  adulterated  precipitated  sulphur,  published  in  this  Journal  in  1869,  page  249,  and 
the  interesting  discussion  which  followed  its  reading  before  the  Pharmaceutical  So- 
ciety of  Great  Britain,  and  in  which  it  was  proven,  that  under  the  name  oi  milk  of 
sulphur,  the  old  form  of  sulphur  precipitated  by  sulphuric  acid,  and  consequently 
containing  much  sulphate  of  calcium,  was  sold  in  England,  while  the  officinal 
article,  which  is  precipitated  by  hydrocliloric  acid,  and  is  therefore  free  from  calcium 
salts,  is  sold  by  its  officinal  English  name — precipitated  sulphur.  This  was  again 
particularly  brought  to  the  notice  of  American  pharmacists  by  Mr.  H.  T.  Brady, 
formerly  President  of  the  British  Pharmaceutical  Conference,  when  he  was  present 
at  the  nineteenth  meeting  of  the  American  Pharmaceutical  Association,  at  St.  Louis, 
in  1871  [^see  Proceedings,  1871,  p.  60). 
In  the  case  referred  to,  the  admixture  of  sulphate  of  calcium  was  admitted,  and 
no  witnesses  were  called  by  the  defence,  which  rested  its  merits  entirely  upon  the 
