A^ceJXer,P&m1     Philadelphia  College  of  Pharmacy.  595 
mining  also  where  good  judgment  was  exercised  and  faithful  work 
performed. 
Professor  Remington  replied  that  he  yielded  to  no  one  in  his 
esteem  for  Dr.  Rice,  but  nevertheless  the  system  used  in  carrying  on 
the  work  of  revising  the  189Q  Pharmacopoeia  and  followed  in  pre- 
paring the  8th  Edition  was  devised  by  him.  He  said  that  the 
system  was  cumbersome  and  led  to  delay  in  the  work;  that  the 
work  was  carried  on  by  correspondence,  and  that  delays  were  caused 
by  the  members  not  sending  in  their  votes ;  that  the  work  was  a 
labor  of  love  and  the  members  being  busy  men  there  was  consider- 
able difficulty  in  expediting  the  work.  He  also  pointed  out  that 
another  plan  devised  by  Dr.  Rice  was  that  of  having  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  of  Revision  vote  on  all  questions.  Professor 
Remington  therefore  felt  that  the  members  of  the  Committee  of 
Revision  should  not  be  held  accountable  for  the  delay  in  publica- 
tion, as  this  was  due  to  the  system  followed.  He  said  that  before 
another  Revision  is  begun  another  plan  must  be  adopted  and  that 
he  intended  to  submit  a  plan  of  revision  at  the  coming  meeting  of 
the  convention. 
Prof.  Herman  J.  Lohmann,  of  the  department  of  pharmacy  of 
the  University  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  said  that  he  desired  to 
say  a  word  commending  the  work  of  Professor  Remington  as  Chair- 
man of  the  Revision  Committee.  He  agreed  with  him  in  the  quo- 
tation that  the  U.S. P.  VIII  is  the  aristocrat  of  pharmacopoeias, 
and  contended  that  no  sober  work  could  be  done  in  the  glare  of 
publicity.  He  said  that  the  present  Pharmacopoeia  had  been  attacked 
most  severely  by  those  having  ulterior  motives.  He  called  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  description  of  resin  of  podophyllum  now 
given  in  the  Pharmacopoeia  more  nearly  conforms  to  the  product 
on  the  market  than  that  in  the  1890  Edition,  and  said  that  very 
little  of  the  product  available  conformed  to  the  description  then 
given. 
Mr.  Wilbert  said  that  he  believed  there  was  only  one  point  on 
which  he  and  the  Chairman  of  the  Revision  Committee  differed, 
namely,  that  in  regard  to  publicity.  He  held  that  people  in  this 
country  are  as  honest  as  they  are  abroad  and  that  therefore  if 
other  pharmacopoeias  are  given  greater  publicity  before  final  publi- 
cation it  would  be  equally  practical  to  follow  a  similar  plan  here. 
He  said  that  if  the  questions  pertaining  to  the  plan  and  scope  of 
the  Pharmacopoeia  were  not  discussed  in  advance  of  the  convention 
