Aui.  Jour.  Pharm. 
July,  1901. 
International  Congresses. 
321 
torious,  were  obstacles  too.  great  to  meet  the  approval  of  American 
and  British  pharmacopoeia  committees. 
At  the  conclusion  of  the  Congress,  the  Committee  of  Organization 
for  a  next  Congress,  appointed  at  the  Brunswick  meeting,  was  re- 
elected and  Vienna  proposed  as  place  for  assembling. 
THIRD  CONGRESS  IN  VIENNA,  1 869. 
The  invitations  and  programme  having  been  sent  out  early  in 
1869,  the  delegates  to  the  Third  International  Pharmaceutical  Con- 
gress convened  in  Vienna,  September  9,  1869.  The  following 
countries  were  represented  by  delegates:  Austria  by  twelve,  Ger- 
many by  nine,  Russia  by  three,  France  by  three,  Italy  by  one, 
Switzerland  by  one,  England  by  two  (H.  S.  Evans  and  Theoph.  Red- 
wood) and  the  United  States  by  one  (John  Faber,  of  Nuremberg). 
Mr.  Wm.  Dankworth,  of  Germany,  was  elected  President  and  Messrs. 
Robinet,  of  France,  and  Trapp,  of  Russia,  Vice-Presidents. 
The  questions  submitted  to  the  Congress  were  : 
(1)  Are  independent  schools  of  pharmacy  desirable  ? — The  dele- 
gates of  the  various  countries  briefly  described  the  collegiate  edu- 
cation at  home.  They  finally  agreed  upon  the  resolution  that 
higher  pharmaceutical  schools,  as  an  integral  part  of  universities, 
with  pharmacists  as  professors  in  the  classes  relating  exclusively  to 
pharmacy,  would  be  preferable  in  the  interest  of  both  the  public 
and  the  profession. 
(2)  What  advantages  will  arise  from  syndical  chambers  proposed 
at  the  preceding  Congress  ? — The  committee  to  whom  this  query 
had  been  submitted  reported  in  favor  of  establishing  such  syndical 
chambers  as  representative  and  advisory  bodies  between  the  phar- 
maceutical association  and  the  Government.  They  might  be 
formed  of  delegates  from  the  pharmaceutical  corporations  within 
certain  districts.  Their  duties  would  consist  in  representing  the 
profession  in  forming  new  regulations  affecting  pharmacy,  and  in 
acting  as  executive  bodies  for  the  proper  working  of  existing  laws. 
(3)  Is  the  supremacy  of  the  medical  profession  in  regulating  phar- 
maceutical matters  compatible  with  the  present  professional  and  social 
standing  of  the  pharmacist,  and  does  it  conduce  to  the  interests  of 
the  State,  the  public  and  the  pharmacist  ? — This  question  applied 
to  pharmacy  in  continental  Europe  only.  The  delegates  shared  in 
the  opinion  that  the  scope  and  the  extent  of  medical  knowledge 
