386  Capture  of  the  Pharmacopoeia.        { Am\„^™f " SoS™' 
New  York  delegate  and  four  Philadelphia  delegates.  I  have  laid 
some  stress  on  the  extent  to  which  Philadelphia  influence  was  shown 
in  these  committees  because,  on  the  occasion  of  the  publication  of 
the  revision  of  1880,  a  change  occurred  that  gave  rise  to  much 
feeling.  The  revision  committee  consisted  of  twenty-five  members, 
about  equally  divided  among  physicians  and  pharmacists.  New- 
York  had  six  representatives  and  Philadelphia  four.  With  the 
exception  of  the  first  edition — 1820,  printed  in  Boston — all  the 
revisions  had  been  printed  in  Philadelphia,  but  the  control  that 
New  York  secured  broke  the  chain  and  the  revision  of  1880  was 
published  in  that  city. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  in  any  detail  the  classification  of 
the  conventions  and  revision  committees  of  1890  and  1900.  The 
pharmacists  had  passed  into  substantial  control,  and  in  the  last 
revision  committee  the  proportion  of  actually  practicing  physicians 
is  quite  small.  The  last  convention  took  a  step  of  great  importance 
in  providing  for  a  Board  of  Trustees.  It  is  interesting  to  determine 
how  far  the  two  classes  of  delegates  have  been  considered  in  the 
appointment  of  this  Board  and  I  think  when  one  looks  at  the  con- 
stitution of  it  and  at  the  list  of  those  who,  outside  of  the' revision 
committee,  have  been  consulted  during  the  preparation  of  the  1900 
revision,  the  expression  "  Capture  of  the  Pharmacopoeia  "  is  justified. 
The  revision  committee  consists  of  twenty-six  members,  includ- 
ing the  president  of  the  convention.  Twelve  of  these  have  the  M.D. 
degree,  but  among  these  at  least  four  are  not  engaged  in  clinical 
work  and  three  others  are  more  directly  interested  in  pharmaceutic 
work,  being  either  connected  with  colleges  of  pharmacy  or  repre- 
senting pharmaceutic  associations  in  the  convention.  It  appears, 
therefore,  that  on  a  strict  construction  only  five  of  the  revision  com- 
mittee represent  medical  practice  in  its  bedside  features.  During 
the  five  years  that  the  committee  was  at  work  it  consulted  about 
twenty-five  outsiders,  but  even  in  this  list  we  find  only  two  or  three 
who  represent  the  medical  profession. 
The  Board  of  Trustees  is  composed  of  seven  persons,  of  whom 
two  have  the  degree  of  M.D.,  and  one  of  these  is  a  professor  in  a 
college  of  pharmacy. 
What  inferences  may  be  drawn  from  these  facts?  Not  that  the 
profession  should  return  to  the  plan  of  1820.  It  is  true  that  the 
history  shows  that  the  regular  medical  profession  has  neglected  its 
duty  in  this  matter  as  it  did  in  regard  to  medical  education,  allow- 
