^cembe/igoT'}    Pharmacopceidl  Revision  Problems.  575 
satisfactory?  for  a  decision  must  be  made,  as  the  article  or  test 
cannot  be  dropped.  It  is  evident  that  the  subject  of  publicity  must 
be  settled  by  the  Pharmacopceial  Convention,  but  the  writer  agrees 
with  Mr.  Wilbert  and  others  that  it  is  expedient  and  wise  to  fully 
discuss  this  subject  and  undoubtedly  a  proper  solution  of  the  ques- 
tion will  be  reached. 
The  writer  does  not  believe  that  harking  back  to  the  Pharma- 
copoeia of  1820  or  previous  Pharmacopoeias  will  be  of  much  practical 
value.  There  has  never  been  a  Committee  of  Revision  in  the  past 
which  had  to  deal  with  the  peculiar  conditions  which  exist  at  present. 
Previous  Pharmacopoeias  have  never  been  absolute  legal  standards 
but  have  been  subject  to  adoption  through  consent,  except  where  the 
various  States  or  the  United  States  Custom  authorities  have  chosen 
to  adopt  Pharmacopoeia  standards,  and  the  Committee  of  Revision 
for  the  next  Pharmacopoeia  will  work  under  vastly  different  con- 
ditions than  the  present  committee. 
A  different  method  of  financing  the  work  will  be  necessary. 
There  never  has  been,  in  any  revision,  any  method  for  compelling  a 
member  of  the  committee  to  work  if  he  did  not  wish  to,  in  fact  it 
has  been  a  veritable  "  labor  of  love."  No  member  could  be  expected 
to  drop  his  usual  work  from  which  he  derived  the  ways  and  means 
of  supporting  himself  or  his  family  and  hence  pharmacopceial  work 
has  been  conducted  by  earnest,  able,  and  conscientious  men  at  great 
sacrifice,  and  the  wonder  is  that  a  book  has  been  produced  which 
critics  even  admit  is  the  "  peer  "  of  any  Pharmacopoeia  in  the  world 
and  which  Schelenz,  an  accepted  author,  declares  to  be  "  the  aris- 
tocrat of  all  Pharmacopoeias." 
With  regard  to  the  increase  of  medical  influence  upon  the  next 
Pharmacopoeia  the  writer  has  frequently  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  medical  profession  should  be  the  sole  arbiters  in  the  matter  of 
selecting  the  medicines  which  should  be  added  to  a  Pharmacopoeia  as 
well  as  those  which  should  be  deleted  and  there  seems  to  be  at  present 
a  strong  desire  among  those  who  take  an  interest  in  pharmacopoeial 
revision  to  take  up  this  part  of  the  work  but  tempora  mutanter  et 
nos  mutamur  in  Mis. 
The  present  Pharmacopoeia  is  a  book  of  standards  and  by  far  the 
largest  part  of  the  work  has  properly  been  given  to  the  tests 
required  to  establish  the  identity  and  purity  of  the  various  substances 
used  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  treatment  of  diseases. 
The  Food  and  Drugs  Act  has  revealed  a  condition  in  this  country 
