Book Reviews.

VORSCHRIFTENBUCH FUER DROGISTEN. Die Herstellung der gebräuchlichten Handverkaufsartikel. Von G. A. Buchheister. Fünfte, vermehrte Auflage. Berlin Verlag von Julius Springer. 1905. [Paper, 8 marks; sheep, 9 marks, 20 pfennig.]

In this book of 500 pages, inclusive of index, formulas are given for nearly every possible preparation demanded of the pharmacist who aims to supply the public with pharmaceutical specialties, as well as household and other remedies of his own make. Veterinary remedies and cattle medicines are considered and the formulas are admirably selected, though only a little over four pages are given up to Tierheilmittel, as against 79 pages of information concerning the manufacture of dietetic and nutritive compounds, which include notes on the preparation of fruit syrups and wines, as well as curry powder, soy and the numerous "bitters" for which Germany is famed. The bitters include such widely different compounds as Boonekamp of Magbitter, Angostura-Bitter and Getreidekümmel, Berliner, to say nothing of Kümmel, Danziger and Schweizer Absinth. The list of punch essences (Punschertraxte) in this department is bewildering. They range from Punschertrart von Rum, ordinär, through besser and mittelfein to Tee-Punschextrakt, Kaiserpunsch and Kardinal-Punnschextrakt, and pass on to processes for the fabrication of artificial rums, arraks and Kognaks. Cosmetics occupy considerable space, as they do in all collections of pharmaceutical formulas, the chapter taking some 97 pages. The formulas start with the simpler complexion washes and run into almond meals and pastes, through toilet vinegars, cold creams and pomades to soaps and soap powders. Then follow face powders and theatrical rouges, the rest of the chapter being given up to preparations for the hair, like the old fashioned pomades, mustache waxes, brilliantine, shampoos, hair restorers, invigorators, dyes and depilatories. The entire range is fully covered even to bleaches. Tooth powders and mouth washes complete the chapter. Listerine is included among the dentifrices and the formula given is certain to astonish the Americans owners of the trademark by its simplicity. The German formula constructor is truly a daring individual! Lacquers and varnishes receive adequate mention and the formulas are well constructed. The chapter on inks is very complete and informing, containing formulas for nearly every known variety of ink. Insecticides and vermin poisons are adequately treated, formulas being given for the most approved destroyers of bugs, rats, mice, moles, crows, foxes, martens and polecats. The chapter concludes curiously with formulas for scented baits for otters, fish and crabs. Photographic formulas and hints in developing make up a useful chapter, which brings the volume to a close. We have no hesitation in saying that the pharmacist who is possessed of a copy of "Buchheister's Formulary" need never be at a loss to supply any specialty asked of him.

A MANUAL OF PHARMACY FOR MEDICAL STUDENTS. By M. F. De Lorme, M.D., Ph.G., Instructor in Materia Medica and Pharmacy, Long Island College Hospital, etc. New York: The John C. Lindsay Company, 1905.

The neglect of pharmacy in medical colleges has been the subject of frequent comment in medical journals. The failure of the colleges to include a satisfactory course in pharmaceutical dispensing in their curricula has also been discussed by the medical societies. The growing tendency of physicians to prescribe the ready-made preparations of manufacturing pharmacists has been often deplored, but notwithstanding this no systematic effort has been made to remedy matters. In the Long Island College Hospital-the name under which the only medical college in Brooklyn is known-special attention seems to be paid to the study of pharmacology and the prescribing and dispensing of medicines. It is gratifying to note and record this fact. Dr. De Lorme's little book is well calculated to make the student of medicine familiar with the Pharmacopœia and with the galenical preparations in common use. It is purely a medical student's compendium, intended to give him the information needed by the practicing physician in the application of his knowledge of therapeutics. The manual contains a number of illustrative prescriptions, and it is to be presumed that the student will receive practical instruction in the compounding of these prescriptions, and by laboratory ex

ercises and recitations receive a grounding in the art of prescribing sufficient to guard him against many of the common errors which tax the patience and the ingenuity of the pharmacist.

The book is of handy size, being adapted to fit the coat pocket, and the interleaving in the second section should prove a convenience to the student.

The proofreading of the book has been evidently neglected, for typographical errors abound. This is no reflection on the author, who should have been spared the appearance of errors of this kind, which belong to the purely mechanical part of the building of a book.

THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY. A Treatise on the Modes of Making and Dispensing Official, Unofficial and Extemporaneous Preparations, with Descriptions of Medicinal Substances, Their Properties, Uses and Doses. Intended as a Hand-book for Pharmacists and Physicians and a Text-book for Students. Fourth edition. By Joseph F. Remington, Ph.M., Phar.D., F.C.S., chairman of the Committee of Revision of the Pharmacopoeia of the United States of America; Professor of Theory and Practice of Pharmacy, and Director of the Pharmaceutical Laboratory in the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1906. This new revised edition of Remington's well-known "Practice of Pharmacy" is distinguished by numerous improvements, which extend even to details of typography. De Vinne type has been substituted for the antique full faced type employed in the preceding edition, and the work has been improved in other mechanical features to make it more easy of reference and agreeable to the eye. The order of the book has not been changed, though the several divisions of the work have been remodeled and new illustrations of autograph prescriptions and new cuts of apparatus have been added. A valuable feature of the work for pharmacy students are the tables of official and unofficial substances and preparations. Among the unofficial preparations most of the newer remedies are included, and such as may not be found listed there find place in the glossary at the end of the volume. Each chapter is followed by a list of questions, the answers to which are given in an appendix. The questions bearing on the introductory chapter are, however, omitted in the fourth edition.

Professor Remington appears to prefer the abbreviation, "U. S. P. (8th Rev.)" for the purpose of quoting the title of the Eighth Decennial Revision of the United States Pharmacopoeia, but we think the purpose would be just as well served if the abbrevation, "U. S. P., VIII," were used.

We have referred to the more agreeable appearance of the volume. This has been obtained largely, as stated, by the use of modern type, but the quality of the paper has also been improved, a whiter stock being employed, which, together with a blacker ink, makes the illustrations stand out better. The number of fac-simile prescriptions has been considerably increased.

Textbooks may come and textbooks may go, but Remington's Practice" is destined to remain the standard for pharmacy students for many years to come.

Correspondence.

In Full Harmony with the N. A. R. D.

To the Editor:

Sir, My attention is particularly called to one of the leading editorials in your valuable publication, entitled "The American Druggists' Syndicate," and fully appreciating your reputation for fairness, I feel sure that the article is inspired by a misunderstanding of the purpose of our organization and the personnel of its members.

Of course, I do not expect your publication to in any way vouch for the success of this enterprise, for such would be entirely unreasonable, but I do sincerely wish to correct the impression which the article states is prevailing that the object of this association is to offset the operations of the N. A. R. D. by providing the retailers with a line of proprietary remedies which could be sold independently of the old line jobbers.

Such an impression could only prevail among those who know absolutely nothing whatever about our plan. Our object is to work in perfect harmony with the N. A. R. D., as shown by the bona-fide stand taken by the directors in their resolution

providing that all goods shall be marketed under a Direct Contract Serial Numbering Plan.

I, personally, without the assistance of any individual druggist, had the organization of this association well on the road to success before any of the gentlemen who now help to make up the directorate were invited or had any knowledge that they would be invited to act for the association in an official capacity, and the majority of the board of directors, consisting of fifteen members, are now and always have been actively associated with the N. A. R. D. E. L. Weston, of Syracuse, chairman of our finance committee, is well known as one of the most active and ardent supporters of the N. A. R. D. in the State of New York.

In fact, out of our 980 members, over 800 are either active members or in sympathy with the N. A. R. D. and its plan. This I will be glad to prove to you or anyone interested in the matter, by the signed statements of the members attached to suggestion blanks, which were filled out by them at my request, to be used as a guide by the directors at their first meeting, when the plan of marketing our products was decided upon.

While some of the gentlemen who consented to act on the directorate of this association are connected with institutions not affiliated with the N. A. R. D., I know that not one of them personally is opposed to that popular retail organization, and I also know that not one of them sought a position on this directorate. They only accepted after being assured that their services were desired by almost a unanimous vote of those who had subscribed for stock, and I don't believe that the members will ever have cause to regret their selection, for which I personally feel very grateful.

In conclusion, I can best illustrate how unfair that impression you refer to is when I assure you that I can convince you or any representative who will do us the honor of calling at our offices, that there is not 5 per cent. of the stock of this association held by any person or persons identified with any interests opposed to the N. A. R. D., and further, that no stockholder of this syndicate, except myself, owns more than one membership consisting of ten shares.

I hope that to carry out your usual policy of fairness, you will give this correction the publicity accorded to the article referred to, which reflected upon the honesty of the intention governing the organization of this syndicate.

C. H. GODDARD, Secretary.

1 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK, January 12, 1906.

An Improvement in the Nomenclature of the Metric System. The use of the metric system in the prescribing and dispensing of medicines has hitherto presented one or two difficulties which may have hindered its wider adoption, says the Lancet. In the metric system of measures the smallest subdivision of the measure of capacity is the millilitre, or as it has erroneously been called, the cubic centimetre. It is the one-thousandth part of the litre, and is equivalent to about 17 minims. The term cubic centimetre denotes, strictly speaking, a measure of volume, and as applied to a measure of capacity it is inappropriate, just as would be the case in the Imperial system if the term cubic feet were substituted for gallons. A practical disadvantage that is met with in the metric system lies in the relative magnitude of the smallest measure, the millilitre. This has been overcome to some extent by using decimal fractions of the millilitre. Thus, the dose of oil of copaiba is from 0.3 to 1.2 Mm., a quantity which does not convey to the mind so definite an impression as five to 20 minims, its Imperial equivalent. In order to simplify matters the suggestion has been made to the editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal that the millilitre should be known as the "mil," the one-tenth part of a millilitre as the "decimil," and the one-hundredth part of a millilitre as the "centimil." The actual values of these new terms will be better understood in the form of a table of suggested metric apothecaries' measure:

The proposal to provide convenient subsidiary names for the 1.0, 0.1 and 0.01 millilitre with a view to promote the ready use of the metric system in prescribing and dispensing, was approved by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society and submitted to Dr. Donald MacAlister for the consideration of the British Pharmacopoeia Committee. This council agreed to support the suggestions and communicated its views to the Warden of the Standards. Mr. Chaney, superintendent of the Standards Department, warmly took the matter up and brought it to the notice of the Comité International des Poids et Mesures, with the result that this committee also accepted the proposition as useful in Great Britain. Measures and pipettes graduated to decimils and centimils are now obtainable, and as the Board of Trade has officially recognized the new terms prescribers will find no practical difficulty in employing the metric system. Thus in the case of oil of copaiba the dose as expressed by the metric system is 3 to 12 decimils. In actual practice the centimil will be found too small a quantity to be measured, but it is useful in calculations. It should be noted that one-half a decimil is equivalent to one standard drop from a pipette made to deliver 20 drops to one gramme of distilled water at 150 degrees C. The opponents of the metric system have laid emphasis on the danger there is of misplacing the decimal point. This objection does not now hold good in the case of the measures of capacity. There is little chance of a voluntary acceptance by the medical profession of the metric system. We are still accustomed to think in Imperial terms, a fact which should gratify a prominent British statesman. But if the compilers of the next edition of the British Pharmacopoeia go a step further than the compilers of the 1898 edition, by inserting only the metric system of weights and measures, perhaps prescribers and dispensers would universally adopt it. The simplification of calculations of strengths and doses would alone afford sufficient reason for its early adoption. Thus, the exact amount of the potent ingredient in one dose of a given preparation may be calculated almost at a glance, whereas by the present system a laborious calculation is often required. Again, minute fractional parts of a grain convey only an indefinite meaning, but by the metric system the doses of potent preparations would be expressed in milligrammes; the dose of sulphate of physostigmine would then become 1 to 3 Mg., instead of 1-60 to 1-20 grain. Now that bottles and measures graduated by the metric system are easily obtainable, and the metric system, with the convenient new terms, mil, decimil and centimi have been officially recognized, there is no practical hindrance to a wider use of the metric system in medicine.

erer

Red Cabbage as an Indicator. Recently E. Fuld (Münchmedicinische Wochenscrift) recommended the coloring matter contained in red cabbage as an indicator in neutralization titrations. Claiming priority, P. Krebitz (Seifensiederzeitung) stated that he has used this indicator for more than a year. W. A. Puckner states (Pharmaceutical Review, January, 1905) that twenty years ago, when he was a student at the Chicago College of Pharmacy, Professor N. Gray Bartlett proposed the use of this coloring matter as an indicator in the volumetric estimation of acids and bases. The indicator when used in rather large amounts imparts a blue color to neutral solutions, turns red with acids and green with alkalies and in lecture demonstrations was used effectively to distinguish be-tween acid, neutral and alkaline solutions.

MILITARY PHARMACISTS.

The Assistant Surgeon-General Opposes "American Druggist " Plans -Conceded Need for a Few Skilled Pharmacists-Dr. Payne Supports a Plan for a Pharmaceutical Corps--George J. Seabury Enters the Arena.

The efforts heretofore put forth to interest the military authorities in any plan providing for military pharmacists of commissioned rank have usually been met with either a chilly silence or with the mere negative assurance that the army has no need for pharmacists. The editorial article which appeared in our issue of December 25 on this subject in conjunction with a paper by the editor, which had been read before the Historical Section of the American Pharmaceutical Association, brought forth a letter from the office of the Surgeon-General of the army, which, while in pronounced opposition to our plan, shows a wholly different spirit from that which permeated that office. Major Jefferson R. Kean, the author of the letter, is assistant to the Surgeon-General, and since his communication is signed with his official title it is to be presumed that the opinions expressed meet with the approval of his superior offiEditorial comment on this letter appears in another column. The letter from Major Kean follows:

cers.

SMALL NEED FOR MILITARY PHARMACISTS.

To the Editor:

Sir, I have read with interest the editorial in your issue of December 25, entitled "Wasted Experience," and also the paper in the same number, "The Military Pharmacist in the Civil War." You will doubtless be willing to believe that there may be something which can be said in mitigation of your rather sweeping criticism of existing methods of medical supply in the army, and it is the purpose of this letter to say that something, and to state briefly what are the existing methods and what has been, in fact, the teaching of military experience. Of the 586 articles on the general supply table of the Army Medical Department 204, or not quite 35 per cent., are medicines and disinfectants, while the other 65 per cent. consists of furniture, bedding, clothing, hospital stores, instruments, appliances, dressings and miscellaneous articles. With regard to the latter, a surgeon who has had practical experience of their use in hospitals is probably the best judge of their quality and suitability. As to drugs, none are purchased until samples of the delivery have been analyzed by the accomplished chemist of the laboratory of the Surgeon General's Office and their purity thus assured. There is no difficulty in securing in this way any amount of medicines which may be required and, in point of fact, to keep the non-medicinal supplies up to standard is much more difficult.

In time of war the difficulty is not with the purchase of medical supplies, but with their transportation and prompt delivery at the front. This is by regulations delegated to the Quartermaster's Department and is the weak point of the system, transportation being the great and controlling factor of army administration on which depends the issue of battles and campaigns. Abundant medical supplies were taken to Santiago, but the troops lacked them because no means were provided for unloading them from the transports and transporting them to the front, and they were mostly brought back to the home ports untouched. The temporary deficiencies at Tampa and Jacksonville were due to defective transporting arrangements, causing delays in forwarding and confusion in locating medical supplies among the miles of freight cars.

It is difficult to see how these conditions would be improved by adding to the army even "148 pharmacists, officers ranging from colonel down to second lieutenant." The evidence of the surgeons at Montauk as brought out before the Dodge Commission shows that there was from the beginning a lavish abundance of medicines at that camp. And it is time to recognize (now that our national attack of hysteria has passed) that our soldiers, in spite of their grave infection with yellow fever and tropical malaria, did not "perish like flies." The total mortality from disease of the Fifth Army corps (Shafter's),

from its organization at Tampa to its disbandment at Montauk, was just 400.

The European armies have pharmacist officers in their medical service because, in times past, before the development of the great establishments of modern manufacturing chemists, the pharmacists of the army manufactured its medicines and surgical dressings. This is still done by them to a large extent, whereas, in the United States, we find it from every point of view preferable to buy our supplies, from quinine pills to first aid dressings, from the great and reliable firms which have sprung up all over the land as a result of our national development. In the same way our Ordnance Department finds it preferable to buy powder rather than to manufacture it. This is a policy which the AMERICAN DRUGGIST will certainly not disapprove.

It does not take more than half a dozen officers, whether surgeons or pharmacists, to purchase the medical supplies of the army, and the drugs are-thanks to the skill and enterprise of our manufacturing pharmacists—for the most part in forms ready for convenient administration, so if a numerous corps of pharmacists were added to the army, no responsible duties could be found in which to employ them unless by the establishment of great government factories for the manufacture of medical supplies for the army. What else can we do with the 148 pharmacist officers which, Mr. Editor, you generously allow us? The great German Army with its 23 army corps has only 49 pharmaceutists permanently belonging to the military establishment, re-enforced by some 250 one-year volunteers (conscripts), yet they employ them for many purposes with which in our army the Medical Department has nothing to do, such as the analysis of foods and beverages. With all their wealth of conscripted personnel they do not find need of the services of even a one-year volunteer to a garrison of less than 1,800 men. The United States Army numbers two scant army corps and has only three garrisons as large as 1,800 men.

It is certain that the Medical Department could make good use of half a dozen pharmaceutical chemists and a like number of medical storekeepers, but 148, ranging from colonel to second lieutenant, would be surely an embarras de richesse.

66

THE ARMY AND NAVY REGISTER'S VIEWS.

A copy of Major Kean's letter to the editor of the AMERICAN DRUGGIST must have been furnished to the Army and Navy Register, for we find it published in full in that journal for January 13, together with the following editorial comment:

There is during a session of Congress no escape from unusual bills, the enactment of which would produce no other effect than needlessly increasing Governmental expenditure. It will be recognized at once that to this class belongs the proposition, evidently originating with and certainly advocated by the American Druggist and Pharmaceutical Record. An article and an editorial in a recent issue of that valuable representative journal are devoted to the subject of military pharmacists and argue in favor of a corps of pharmacists, consisting of nearly 150 officers, whose rank shall be from colonel down to second lieutenant, the senior member to have the additional title of "pharmacist general." The proposition is based on the far-fetched theory that the deaths during the war with Spain might have been prevented in a large measure had there been a corps of pharmacists. It is very properly pointed out in a letter reproduced elsewhere-written by Major J. R. Kean, United States army, assistant to the Surgeon-General, and addressed to the editor of the American Druggist-that there is no warrant for saying that our soldiers at Montauk "perished like flies." That is a fiction which has been too long endured and, as the army surgeon remarks, it is time to establish the truth. As a matter of fact, "the total mortality from disease in the Fifth Army Corps fro mits organization at Tampa to its disbandment at Montauk was just 400." Whatever failure occurred at Tampa and Jacksonville in the medical service and whatever was subject to criticism in the same department while our troops were in Cuba were due to lack of transportation at a

time and in a country where the facilities were impeded beyond any relief which the most experienced army quartermasters could afford.

There is no question of the value of pharmacists and the medical department, as is stated in Major Kean's letter, could make good use of some six pharmaceutical chemists and as many medical storekeepers. Beyond that the pharmacists of the projected corps would be an incumbrance and an extravagance. We imagine that the firms which manufacture medical supplies, of which the Government buys a large quantity for its military and naval services, will not relish the movement inaugurated by the American Druggist to impose upon the army medical department 149 pharmaceutical officers of rank from colonel down to second lieutenant. There would be one direct result at least: that of the establishment of Government plants to produce the medical supplies which are now purchased under contract.

DR. PAYNE SUPPORTS THE AMERICAN DRUGGIST'S PLAN. Dr. George F. Payne, of Atlanta, Ga., a former president of the American Pharmaceutical Association, and who was for many years chairman of the committee of the American Pharmaceutical Association on the status of the pharmacists in the service of the United States, writes a letter supporting the views of the AMERICAN DRUGGIST as follows:

DR. PAYNE HAS LIVELY HOPES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE MILITARY PHARMACIST.

To the Editor:

Sir, I have just read with a great deal of interest in the December number of the AMERICAN DRUGGIST the article on "The Military Pharmacist in the Civil War." In the last paragraph of the article you refer to the work of the American Pharmaceutical Association and suggest that if it had been along the line of securing pharmacists independent of the present hospital stewards, it would have been more successful. I wish to say as chairman of that committee that we took up this feature of the case on several occasions with the SurgeonGeneral of the United States Army, but the answers were practically of the same character and each amounted to stating that there was no need of pharmacists in the United States Army, as pharmacy was a very small part of the work of the present hospital steward, as his pharmaceutical duties were chiefly the counting out of ready-made tablets and the handling of other ready-made preparations.

It might be interesting to the pharmacists of the United States to see some of this correspondence, but I think we have shown the spirit in which these suggestions were made in one or two of our reports. It would be much more satisfactory to the hospital stewards for us to work in touch with them for further advancement and their aid and suggestions would be very valuable, but this, it has been found, is very difficult to secure on account of the peculiarly handicapped position in which the army hospital steward is placed. I have come to the conclusion that the surest way to get pharmacy properly recognized in the army is to have a separate corps of pharmacists independent of the present hospital stewards, as you suggest. It will probably take a big fight, however, to bring the SurgeonGeneral of the army over to our way of thinking, but I believe the advance which has been accomplished in the navy and marine hospital service can be accomplished in the army also. Our committee has taken some active steps in this direction and we believe that this condition of affairs which you suggest will eventually be brought about.

When we consider what has already been accomplished in the navy and in the marine hospital service we have every reason to feel encouraged for active work in regard to the status of the pharmacists in the army. In the navy we have practically secured commissions and good salaries, and but for the interpretation of one of the acts in a way adverse to the naval pharmacists they would be enjoying at present the rank of ensign and commissions, as they have been made warrant officers and if given the full rights of other warrant officers they would now have the rank of ensign without further legislation. The Surgeon-General has taken up the matter of securing legislation to accord to the present pharmacists of the navy who are warrant officers all of the privileges of other warrant officers and we think commissions will be secured within the next few months. They would have been secured

last year but for there being a deficit in the treasury and anything carrying an appropriation which could be deferred to a later date was left to be taken up at a later period. The bill no doubt would have passed early in the last session, but it was found necessary to change the wording of the bill to meet certain conditions and it got placed later down on the list than would have otherwise been the case. The Surgeon-General went before the Naval Committee and made a strong argument in favor of the bill, and I am confident it will pass at the present session of Congress.

In the name of pharmacy I wish to thank you for your continued interest in this work. You were among the first to help us in labor when so many thought it was useless to even make an effort. Yours sincerely,

ATLANTA, GA., January 2, 1906.

GEORGE F. PAYNE.

GEORGE J. SEABURY TAKES UP THE TASK OF SECURING RECOGNITION FOR THE PHARMACIST.

George J. Seabury, of New York, who has been the New York member of Dr. Payne's committee for many years and who this year succeeds Dr. Payne as chairman, has written a letter on the subject of the status of the military pharmacist to a member of the United States Senate, from which we take the following excerpts:

THE AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION AND THE GOVERNMENT PHARMACIST.

To the Editor:

Sir, I have pleasure in sending you herewith a list of the names of the committee of the American Pharmaceutical Association on the status of the pharmacist. This committee has been formed for success, and will not surrender until we succeed. We may have to bide a wee, but when the plan of action is once resolved upon, we propose to fight it out, not only all Summer, but all Spring, Autumn and Winter as well. I enclose you a letter sent to the United States Senator who will have charge of our interests. I have corresponded with him and will, when I see him personally, draw up our plan of action. We will not proceed on any guerilla legislation, but tack our bill to one that will concern the reformation of the medical service, where it belongs by proper classification. Will keep you posted when we start in for victory. We will be content with nothing less-the rank and pay will be fought for the entire service no discrimination in any branch. With a "Happy New Year," I remain,

Yours truly,

GEORGE J. SEABURY, Chairman.

NEW YORK, January 3, 1906.

COMMITTEE ON STATUS OF PHARMACISTS IN THE ARMY, NAVY AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND MARINE HOSPITAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES. George J. Seabury, chairman, New York.

MEMBERS AT LARGE.

Prof. James H. Beal, Pennsylvania.

Dr. George F. Payne, Georgia.

Lucien B. Hall, Ohio, president National Wholesale Druggists' Association.

M. T. Breslin, Louisiana, president National Association of Retail Druggists.

Members of general committee, the presidents of State Associations: State and name.

Alabama, E. H. Cross.
Arizona, Harry Brisley.
Arkansas, W. II. Skinner.
California, J. H. Dawson,
Colorado, Chas. J. Clayton.
Dist. of Columbia, S. L. Hilton.
Connecticut, J. A. Hodgson.
Delaware, Joseph P. Williams.
Florida, Thomas Clarke.
Georgia. Max Morris.
Idaho, David E. Smithson.
Illinois, Christian Garver.
Indiana. Harry E. Glick.
Iowa, Geo. M. Pedersen.
Kansas, Carl Engel.
Kentucky, C. A. Leathers.
Louisiana, C. D. Sauvinet.
Maine, A. W. Meserve.
Maryland, M. A. Toulson.
Massachusetts, Peter McCormick,
Michigan, J. O. Schlotterback.
Minnesota, Chas. H. Huhn.
Mississippi, Anthony Fly.
Missouri, J. F. Llewellyn.
Montana, Fred. A. Woehner.

State and name.

Nebraska, Niels P. Hansen.
Nevada, Jos. M. Taber.

New Hampshire, Albert J. Weeks.

New Jersey, Wm. M. Davis.

New Mexico, Geo. A. Morris.

New York, J. A. Lockie.
North Carolina, T. R. Hood.
North Dakota, H. H. Bateman.
Ohio, Z. T. Baltzly.
Oklahoma, A. B. Clark.
Oregon, B. F. Jones.
Pennsylvania, D. J. Thomas.
Rhode Island, John E. Groff.
South Carolina, C. A. Milford.
South Dakota, W. F. Michel.
Tennessee, T. J. Shannon.
Texas, J. P. Hayter.
Utah, F. C. Schramm.
Vermont, F. W. Mitchell.
Virginia, T. A. Miller.
Washington, P. Jensen.
West Virginia, C. G. Buchanan.
Wisconsin, H. L. Schulz.
Wyoming, R. L. Newman.

Indian Territory, Thomas Shackle.

THE LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES SENATOR.

Below is a copy of the letter referred to above by Mr. Seabury:

Dear Senator:

In September last I accepted the chairmanship of the Americai Pharmaceutical Associations' Committee on the status of pharmacists in the Army and Navy in particular and extended it to the National Guard and Marine Hospital Service as well. You know something about the latter since you interested yourself in its behalf, but we have not gone far enough.

In his message the President referred to our lack in the medical department. I endorse many of his observations and criticisms of the quality and capacity of physicians at present in the government service and think he might have gone just one step further and made the same remarks apply to the practitioners in pharmacy.

When we asked Surgeon-General O'Reilly to send a representative to our last meeting in Atlantic City to represent the hospital stewards, he replied, that he regretted to say that we had no pharmacists in the army; he was therefore unable to send a representative-an admission that will spur on our committee. However the government was not unrepresented since General Wyman sent us a most worthy representative of the profession from the Marine Hospital Service.

When Governor of the State of New York the President signed a bill making the hospital steward in the National Guard a first lieutenant, though a year afterwards he was reduced to his former non-commissioned officer's position to conform with the regulations of the regular establishment. We want him reinstated through new army medical regulations with rank and pay of an officer.

It will be my duty to see you and I will be armed with proper documents and will ask you to act as the medium of our pleadings to have our professional brethren promoted to the rank and pay of an officer. I am not sure that we will ask for a captaincy or first lieutenancy, but officer he must be at proper compensation; he is entitled to this distinction by training, deportment and mental capacity, whether he be an Army pharmacist, Naval apothecary, Marine hospital service pharmacist or National Guard hospital steward. He enjoys an officer's position in all the advanced and well regulated armies of the world, the German, French, Russian and Japanese. The highest officer on the German apothecary staff has the rank of a colonel and so on down to the lowest grades of officers.

There is no sound reason why pharmacists should be discriminated against in their demand for equal rank and pay with the allied professions, whether it be medicine, veterinary practice or dentistry. In fact the studies of the pharmacist of to-day are more complex than those of any other single profession.

I have organized my committee and will be ready to work at any time. This committee will also suggest to the government that it owes to the nation and to our soldiers and sailors that they appoint as hospital stewards, naval apothecaries or hospital pharmacists, only those having a college education or certificates from a State Board of Pharmacy. Our soldiers and sailors are worthy of the best service at the command of the profession to compound and dispense their medicines and deadly drugs. It is economy for the government to keep our forces in good health wherever they may be. In war the pharmacist temporarily supplants the disabled physician.

Another point that favors this movement is that to-day the college curriculum has been extended to four years with entrance qualifications equal to those of the highest colleges, especially in the College of the City of New York. Our sister-colleges are not far behind. The pharmacist is the practical copartner of the physician and equals him in point of responsibility. His life work is even more exacting-if I may so define it, it is a life of slavery to both professions.

This letter is longer than I contemplated writing when addressing you, but I thought it would relieve you from a

tedious interview when I made a personal application. You can think it over at your leisure and then when I visit you, you can get rid of me in record time.

I herewith enclose a list of our committee as formed for Victory and, let us hope, not for Defeat. Very truly yours,

GEORGE J. SEABURY, Chairman.

NEW YORK, January 6, 1906.

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION.

Attitude of the Association on Legislative Matters ReferredBill Requiring Filing of Proprietary Formulas Held UpVirginia Apprentice Bill Disapproved.

Richmond, Va., January 12.-By practically unanimous vote the Virginia Pharmaceutical Association, in special session held in this city on January 3, rejected both the so-called pharmacy bill and the proposed measure designed to regulate the sale of patent and proprietary medicines in the State, and referred the entire matter to committees, which will not report until after the General Assembly has adjourned.

CHARACTER OF THE BILLS.

At its last regular meeting the association indorsed the bills, one legalizing the employment of a registered apprentice pharmacist under 18 years of age, who may be left in management of the business, and the other providing that the proprietor of any patent medicine should make written application to the Board of Pharmacy for the privilege of selling it, and should file with the board an affidavit showing the ingredients of the medicine and a description of the package in which it is sold, together with the directions and advertisements. The resolution calling for the introduction of the Patent Medicine bill was adopted by a vote of 10 to 9.

OPPOSITION DEVELOPS.

Recently a strong movement in opposition to these bills developed. Meetings were held in this city by the druggists, and the drug clerks as well, and an organized fight began. Twelve members of the Virginia Pharmaceutical Association, which had indorsed the bills, signed a request for a special session, and the body was called to meet in this city. The session began at 10.30 o'clock in the auditorium of the Medical College of Virginia, with about 40 members present, including druggists from Richmond, Lynchburg, Newport News, Portsmouth and other cities. T. A. Miller, of this city, presided, and C. W. Fleet, of Lynchburg, acted as secretary.

ANIMATED DISCUSSION.

Practically the entire session was devoted to a consideration of the bills. The discussion was very animated, but the final action is said to have been almost unanimous. Various suggestions were made, with the result that the association ultimately rescinded its former action and rejected both bills. Two committees were appointed, one for each bill, to report at the next annual meeting, which will be held in July, after the General Assembly has adjourned. This practically leaves the entire matter in abeyance until the Legislature of 1908. The committee to consider the Patent Medicine bill consists of E. D. Taylor, T. W. Chelf and Gordon Blair, all of this city. Its report, if it makes one at all, will be diametrically opposed to the bill as proposed. The committee on the Apprentice bill is composed of Polk Miller, T. N. Curd and Gordon Blair, all of this city. It will likely recommend a bill with the features objectionable to the drug clerks eliminated.

Syracuse Druggists to Celebrate.

The Syracuse Druggists' Association is to hold its annual outing at Long Branch on January 25. The attendance will include all druggists in the county, with their wives and friends, and dinner will be served promptly at 8 o'clock, after which bowling, dancing and cards will give all a chance for a sociable time. The committee has secured a prize for each person in attendance and also grand prizes for bowling, whist, pedro and dancing.