The motion of Mr. Sayre provoked considerable discussion, participated in by Messrs. Oldberg, Mayo, Hallberg, Eccles, Sayre and Beal, and having been seconded by Mr. Prescott, with the proviso that the committee to be appointed shall report next year, it was put to a vote and carried.

MR. OLDBERG: I move that the committee be appointed at a later time. I think specialists should be appointed on that committee.

The motion prevailed.

THE CHAIRMAN: This brings to a conclusion the papers in hand by the Chairman of the Section, and if there is no other business to be brought before us the installation of officers is in order.

MR. LYONS: There is one item of business to come before the Section, that in regard to the Research Committee for the coming year. I think two members drop out each year. I believe Mr. Dohme and Mr. Lloyd are the members whose terms expire. The committee would be in favor of permanency in the constitution of the membership as far as possible.

THE CHAIRMAN: The two members of the Research Committee whose terms expire are, as I understand, J. U. Lloyd and A. R. L. Dohme. It has been suggested by the Chairman of the Committee that it would be desirable that the Committee be a permanent one as far as possible, and we infer that he would like the same members reelected.

MR. PRESCOTT: The time is for two years, I am quite sure.

MR. OLDBERG: I was especially requested by Mr. Lloyd to say that he is now so loaded with work that he cannot add anything more, or take any further responsibility on himself, and he desires to be excused from further service.

MR. LYONS: It is not for Mr. Lloyd's individual work that we want him particularly, but more that our Association may have the benefit of the Lloyd Library of pharmacy literature that he is maintaining. I infer that he is entirely willing to do whatever he can in that line.

MR. OLDBERG: There is no question at all that the Lloyd Library will always be open to the Association and the members of this committee.

The name of Mr. J. O. Schlotterbeck was proposed for membership on the committee.

Mr. Prescott also nominated A. R. L. Dohme to succeed himself on the committee.

On motion of Mr. Hallberg, the nominations were declared closed.

Mr. Hallberg then moved that the Secretary cast the affirmative ballot of the Section for Messrs. Schlotterbeck and Dohme, electing them as the new members of the Research Committee, and the motion was seconded and carried.

The Secretary stated that he had performed the duty assigned him.

THE CHAIRMAN: The next business in order is the installation of officers, and I

would ask Mr. Beal and Mr. Holmes to conduct the newly elected Chairman to the

chair.

When Mr. Oldberg came forward the Chairman said:

It is with very great pleasure, indeed, that the retiring Chairman introduces to the Section on Scientific Papers a gentleman well known to you all. You know his work in the past, and I am sure that the reputation of the American Pharmaceutical Association in its Scientific Section will be upheld.

MR. OLDBERG: I shall not attempt to inflict any speech on the Section. I simply wish to say that I shall endeavor to do my duty during the coming year, and hope to suc ceed nearly as well as my predecessors.

The committee conducted Mr. Kebler, the newly-elected Secretary, to the chair, and Mr. Kebler said:

Gentlemen, I highly appreciate the honor which has been conferred upon me, and it will be a stimulus for good work for the Section, which I hope to do. I shall try to keep in mind the high class of work done in the past, and will do all in my power to make mine equal to it.

MR. OLDBERG: Mr. Kebler and I have consulted together about our associate for the coming year, and we have agreed on Mr. W. A. Puckner, of Chicago, to fill that position.

THE CHAIRMAN: The retiring Chairman wishes to express his appreciation to the Section for its kindness, and his very great indebtedness to the members who have aided him so much in carrying out the programme of the Section. It was the desire of the Chairman to carry on the reading of papers as promptly as possible, and he trusts that no discussion has been shut off unduly, or any papers improperly contracted.

I think the further business of the session had best be conducted by the new Chair

man.

Mr. Oldberg took the chair.

Mr. Stevens moved that the reading of the minutes of the previous session be dispensed with. Carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any further reports of committees?

MR. HALLBERG: I move that the thanks of the Section be tendered the retiring officers for their faithful services during the past year.

MR. PRESCOTT: I take pleasure in seconding that motion. I believe the Section is very greatly indebted to the retiring officers for the very excellent meeting of the Section we have had.

The motion was carried unanimously by a standing vote.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any new business to come before the Section? If not, a motion to adjourn is now in order.

Upon motion of Mr. Stedem, the Section then adjourned.

MINUTES

OF THE

SECTION ON EDUCATION AND LEGISLATION.

FIRST SESSION-FRIDAY AFTERNOON, MAY 11, 1900.

The first meeting of the Section on Education and Legislation was called to order at 2: 15 p. m., by Chairman Lowe.

The Chair announced that the first order of business, under the By laws, was the reading of the Chairman's Address, and Mr. Stewart was asked to take the chair while that was being done.

Mr. Lowe then read his address as follows:

Gentlemen: Your chairman would call your attention to the following matters relating to this Section. We are delighted with this opportunity of meeting with our Virginia members, but regret the necessity of being compelled to anticipate by four months our usual time of meeting; especially as it is in the comparative leisure of these four months that most of the work of this Section is done. We, therefore, fear that the number of papers coming before us will be greatly limited; but while this is regretable from one view point, it will give us the time to devote to the draft of the "Model Pharmacy Law," that will be reported by Mr. Beal, and to the report on Preliminary Education for Students of Colleges of Pharmacy," to be submitted by Mr. Alpers.

In connection with the first of these subjects, viz., "The Model Pharmacy Law," I would call your attention to the following matters: although it is quite probable that most of them will also be reported upon, yet their importance is sufficient to warrant me in thus presenting and reiterating them.

In the first place, as pharmacy laws are enacted for the benefit of the citizens of the several states (and only incidentally for that of pharmacists), it is entirely reasonable and just that all expenses of administering such laws should be met by direct appropriation from the state treasuries, as is the case with the administration of other state laws, or state departments, and not by the fines or fees collected by the Pharmacy Boards. When the expenses of administering a pharmacy law are paid out of the accruing fines and fees, it lays the Board open to the criticism of rejecting applicants for registration so that they can get another fee from them, or of being unduly harsh in the administration of the law so that the accruing fines may swell their receipts. It also seems to me that it should be the duty of the prosecuting or district attorneys to prosecute all violators of the pharmacy law, as they do the violators of other laws of the state. In this connection I might say, that the evidence which is required in some states to convict a non-registered pharmacist

of the violation of the law by the compounding of prescriptions, viz., that such compounding was done in the presence of the witness, defeats justice, as in all such cases the compounding is done in privacy, special care being taken to exclude witnesses. It should be evidence enough that the written prescription was received over the counter and the compounded prescription handed back. It would seem to me that the time is near at hand when the expression of opinion, which was unanimously agreed to at the last meeting of this Section, viz., "that none but recognized graduates should be received by Boards of Pharmacy for examination," should be crystallized into action. Some twelve years ago, in a conversation with Prof. Maisch, he stated "that if he did not hold a professorship in a College of Pharmacy he should strongly urge this matter." At that time perhaps few held such an opinion; at the present time probably the majority do. An incident bearing upon this will probably be of interest. Recently in conversation with a college student, who had been rejected in three branches in the final examination, I endeavored to console him by telling him that it would not have been of any advantage to him to have passed, for he would have been rejected by the Pharmacy Board also. He politely informed me that he had already passed. I think it might give an impetus to the matter if the Secretary of this Section should communicate with the different Pharmacy Boards, acquainting them of our action, and urging them, where they have the power, to carry this action into effect, and to announce the time at which examination will be confined to graduated pharmacists only. A few years ago we heard much about the injustice done to pharmacy graduates in not allowing them to register upon their diplomas, but in recent years but little has been heard, as many clearly see that this would be the means of creating numerous Colleges of Pharmacy solely for the purpose of granting degrees; even as it is, so numerous have Colleges of Pharmacy become, that a number of the Pharmacy Boards which formerly granted this right have withdrawn it. The North Carolina Board said last year, "We have decided to no longer recognize diplomas, on account of the large number of new colleges springing up all over the country, thereby avoiding offense to any."

I should also like to see incorporated into each pharmacy law, "That the conviction of any pharmacist in a court of justice for violating the liquor or license law of his State shall forfeit his certificate of registration." This would be a much more effectual way of killing off the "saloon druggist" than by simply fining him.

The former Chairman of this Section suggested a new method of appointing members of State Pharmacy Boards. He suggested that they should be appointed jointly by the American Pharmaceutical Association and the American Medical Association from the members resident in such States. The committee to whom the matter was referred concluded that while such a method was excellent in theory, it was not practical. In thinking the matter over carefully I can not see any great advantage of this method over that in practice already in certain States, notably New Jersey. In the latter State, the State Association is required annually to present to the Governor five names from which the Governor is required to choose one to fill the vacancy annually occurring in the Board. This method of appointment takes the matter entirely out of politics, and should insure the appointment of the most competent pharmacists in the State. It might be said that in some States the membership of the American Pharmaceutical Association is not suffi cient to constitute a Pharmacy Board.

The question is repeatedly asked, who is responsible for the large growth in the use by physicians of proprietary articles, and how can this tendency be best controlled? We think the responsibility rests in the first place upon the manufacturer of these preparations. They flood the physicians with circulars, and send out their detail men who are mostly free of samples and glib of tongue, who manage to convince the physician that their preparations are far superior to anything the retail pharmacist can possibly make, in fact they are the sine qua non of pharmacy. The physician, while well versed in histology,

pathology, bacteriology, gynecology, etc., etc., knows but little pharmacy, and thus falls an easy prey to these pharmaceutical missionaries.

Owing to the limited pharmaceutical instruction which is given even in the best medical schools in our country, and it is not to the credit of the medical students when I say that many of them get more than they want (in fact the time devoted to it was shortened at the protest of the students of one of our most prominent medical colleges a year ago), many physicians are not competent to dispense their own medicines, and welcome anything that will make the work easier.

A most potent reason is the lack of practice by young physicians in prescription writing. It is so much easier to write for somebody's glycerin tonic, than to formulate their own prescription, forgetting the fact that they are not exercising their therapeutical ability in thus doing, but are rather hiding their talent in a napkin.

The course inaugurated at one of our prominent medical colleges last year called "clinical conferences" will be of great value. Each student is required to go to the black-board and write out a suitable prescription for the disease as diagnosed. It would be excellent practice for each medical student of the fourth year class to be compelled to write out a prescription for each case he sees in hospital or clinic, such prescriptions to be criticised and marked by competent authority. A drill of this kind carried through a whole year's work would be of inestimable value, and would probably bring greater returns than much of their surgical knowledge.

I think the pharmacists are not altogether blameless in this matter, for many have sat supinely by seeing this part of their business slip out of their hands. Each pharmacist should make an effort to furnish the physicians of his locality with preparations equally efficient and elegant.

I would call the attention of manufacturers of fluid extracts to the importance of having the directions on their labels for making tinctures correct. While not friendly to the making of tinctures from fluid extracts, occasionally the practice must be resorted to. Recently when making small quantities of some tinctures I found the directions incorrect, the menstrua differing from that of the U. S. P. and precipitates resulting. I would also call attention to the want of uniformity in labeling fluid extracts. A very prominent firm uses both Latin and English names, as for instance Fluid Extract of Poke Berries, Fld. Ext. Rhus Glabra, Fld. Ext. Glycyrrhiza, Fld. Ext. Wild Cherry. Another firm uses mostly English names, or their synonyms, the latter to my mind not always being the most prominent ones, for instance Fld. Ext. Cimicifuga being labeled Fld. Ext. Black Cohosh.

As physicians generally use Latin names in their prescriptions, it would be preferable to use Latin names in labeling fluid extracts, at least it would lead to uniformity and would also have some educational advantages. The synonyms of course should have a prominent place on the label.

I think it would be wise if some simple price mark, as the Roman numerals, or the "tit-tat-to" cost mark could be adopted generally by pharmacists for pricing copies of prescriptions. This would insure a uniform price and would prevent the last dispenser from being considered extortionate from overcharging, or incompetent from undercharging. I know it may be charged against such a practice that it would simply give one away to his rivals, but I think the reverse is the case; where the price is unknown the tendency is to make it as cheap as possible.

According to the estimate furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury to Congress, there will be an estimated surplus for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, of $70,000,oco. Would it not then be most eminently proper for us to urge, both collectively and individually, the repeal of the stamp tax, which bears so harshly upon the pharmaceutical profession.

During this last winter the question of Sunday selling has received much attention in