Section, Mr. Beal, Mr. Oldberg, and Mr. Sheppard; the same committee to present a revised form of the law for adoption.

MR. BEAL: I think, perhaps, that committee had better be larger. I move that the number be changed to five, and I suggest the addition of Mr. Hallberg's name.

The motion was so put and carried.

The chair appointed Mr. Hallberg and Mr. England additional members of the committee.

At four o'clock, after the discussion of section 3 of the model law, the chair announced that the hour fixed by the Entertainment Committee for a trolley ride through the city had arrived.

Mr. Oldberg moved to request the Council to see to it in the future that the entertainment features of the meetings shall not interfere with the work of the Sections.

Mr. Bartley seconded the motion.

MR. CASPARI: I desire to say for the Local Secretary and for the Council that the programme suggesting this trolley-ride was adopted for the reason that there is present at every meeting a large number of ladies and gentlemen who desire these entertainments; but there is no occasion for adjourning the Section. Those who want to go trolleyriding can do so, and the rest can stay here in session. It is not obligatory at all on the Section to adjourn.

MR. MAYO: In the Council I voted against the adoption of the programme last year, which gave us an excursion one day in the week, but my protest was overruled, and, I think, it is well for us to express our sentiments on this subject. In a general way, we prefer the work of the Association to be fairly close together, though there might be half a day devoted to excursions, possibly. I know some gentlemen who have gone away and missed this particular session because of this matter.

MR. WHELPLEY: The motion, as I understand it, is to ask the Council to prevent a repetition of this condition. Being in sympathy with the present Local Seeretary-and also with the Local Secretary elected for next year-I would like to have it distinctly understood that the Council fixes the programme, though the Local Secretary is accessory to the crime.

MR. ALPERS: The Local Secretary is a member of the Council?

MR. WHELPLEY: Yes, sir; and accessory to the crime. From fifteen or sixteen years' attendance at the meetings I can say that about the same dissatisfaction occurs annually, no matter what the programme is. I remember twelve years ago, when there was com plaint because our entertainments were given at the end of the sessions. It was said that they should be mixed in with the sessions. On the strength of that, at the White Mountains, we started our meeting on Wednesday, so we could have a Sunday intervening, and that idea was carried out for a while. But it may be time now for the other side to have its inning, and the rest can wait.

Mr. Oldberg's motion was put to a vote and carried.

Mr. Stewart moved to adjourn, but the motion was voted down.

THE CHAIRMAN: The next order of business is the nomination of a Chairman and Secretary to serve the Section for the ensuing year. Nominations are in order.

MR. HALLBERG: I take pleasure in nominating as Chairman of the Section for the ensuing year, Mr. Koch, the present Secretary.

Mr. Beal seconded the nomination.

MR. GOOD: I take pleasure in putting in nomination our present Chairman.

Mr. Bartley seconded the nomination.

THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I am not at all desirous of serving again, though I thank you for the honor of mentioning me in that connection. Mr. Koch has made an excellent Secretary, and there is no doubt he would make an excellent Chairman,

MR. GOOD: My suggestion of the Chairman's name was not intended as a reflection on Mr. Koch in any way.

On motion of Mr. Stewart, the nominations for Chairman were closed. Mr. Beal nominated Mr. Koch, the present incumbent, for Secretary, and Mr. Nattans seconded the nomination.

The Chairman stated that the names of the nominees would be posted, to be acted on at the final session, and then announced Messrs. Hallberg, Stewart and Stedem as the committee to consider and report upon the Chairman's address.

On motion of Mr. Good, an adjournment was had to 8: 45 p. m.

SECOND SESSION-FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 11, 1900.

The session was called to order by Chairman Lowe at 9: 20 p. m. Upon motion of Mr. Whelpley, the reading of the minutes of the first session was dispensed with.

On motion of Mr. Stewart, debate on the remaining sections of the model pharmacy law, to be read by Mr. Beal, was limited to five minutes, no person to be allowed to speak twice on the same subject.

The Chair announced that the election of officers of the Section was the next order of business, and said that a ballot would be taken for Chairman, there being two nominees for that office.

Mr. Beal, of the committee appointed to take the ballot, announced that the result showed 29 ballots cast, and one blank; that Mr. Lowe had received 21 ballots and Mr. Koch 8.

CHAIRMAN LOWE: I thank you, gentlemen, for your vote.

On motion of Mr. Good, Mr. Beal was directed to cast the affirmative ballot of the Section electing Mr. Koch to the office of Secretary.

Mr. Beal announced that he had performed that duty, and the chair declared Mr. Koch elected accordingly.

THE CHAIRMAN: The order of business now is the further consideration of the draft of a model pharmacy law.

Mr. Beal read the remainder of his draft of the model law by sections,

Four of

and as at the previous session, considerable discussion ensued. the sections, Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19, were approved as read, while in the case of the remaining three sections some changes were suggested and adopted, chiefly of a minor character, relating to phraseology, etc.

In accordance with the resolution adopted at the first session, this part of the law, with amendments adopted, was also turned over to the special committee of five, to whom the first twelve sections had been referred, with a request to report the complete law in revised form at the next session.

Those who took part in the discussion of the last twelve sections of the pharmacy law were Messrs. Alpers, Bartley, Beal, Eccles, Good, Hallberg, Hynson, Kennedy, Mayo, Oldberg, Porter, Sheppard, Stedem, Stewart, Thompson and Whelpley.

The question of legal decisions of special interest to pharmacists having been raised, Mr. Beal stated that he had in preparation a book which will contain a majority of the decisions of all the courts of this country and Great Britain, bearing on pharmacy laws, collected by himself.

On motion of Mr. Stedem, the Section adjourned until to-morrow mornIng at 10 o'clock.

THIRD SESSION-SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 12, 1900.

The Section was called to order at 10:15 a. m., by Chairman Lowe. On motion of Mr. Ryan, the reading of the minutes of the previous session was dispensed with.

At the request of the chair, Mr. Stewart read the report of the Committee on National Legislation as follows:

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION. The question of National Legislation on the subject of patents and trade-marks is, as you are aware, officially in the hands of a commission appointed by President McKinley for investigation. So far as your committee was able to assist in the labors of said commission, by presenting to it the views of the Association, this has been done; and the subject of patents and trade-marks as affecting medicinal wares, has repeatedly been discussed by your committee with the commission.

Members of this committee appeared before the commission both at its meetings in Chicago, New York, and Washington, and also took part in the discussion of the same subject before the International Commercial Congress in Philadelphia. At those meeting of the commission we reaffirmed the position taken by the Association at the several annual meetings where the question was discussed and acted upon.

SUMMARY.

JNO. F. PATTON,

A. B. LYONS,
ALBERT E. ERERT,
HY. P. HYNSON,
F. E. STEWART.

I. The endeavor of the so-called "Proprietary Medicine" business to erect a secret patent system and establish it by law under the guise of trade-mark legislation has thus far proved abortive.

2. The names of secret medicines registered as trade-marks are either descriptive or deceptive. If these names be descriptive they are not trade-marks, for it is an axiom of law that a descriptive name cannot be a trade-mark. If, on the contrary, they are deceptive, their alleged owners cannot come into court to defend them with clean hands, and only such as have clean hands can have any status in courts of equity.

3. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the name of a patented medicine, whether it be a coined name or not, passes over to the public domain when the patent for the article itself expires. Hear the decision of the court: "The result, then, of the American, the English, and the French doctrine universally upheld is this, that where, during the life of a monopoly created by a patent, a name, whether it be arbitrary or be that of the inventor, has become, by his consent, either express or tacit, the identifying and generic name of the thing patented, this name passes to the public with the cessation of the monopoly which the patent created. Where another avails himself of this public dedication to make the machine and use the generic designation, he can do so in all forms, with the fullest liberty, by affixing such name to the machine, by referring to it in advertisements and by other means, subject, however, to the condition, that the name must be so used as not to deprive others of their rights or to deceive the public, and therefore that the name must be accompanied with such indications that the thing manufactured is the work of the one making it, as will unmistakably inform the public of that fact."

4. There is only one patent system in the United States. Its object is to promote progress in science and useful arts, and thus advance civilization. The theory upon which the patent law rests is that it is to the interest of the community that persons' should be induced to devote their time, energies and resources to original investigation for the furtherance of science, the arts, and manufactures. This was recognized from the earliest periods which can pretend to be described as civilized. It is to the advantage of the whole community that authors and inventors should be rewarded, and no measure of reward can be conceived more just or equitable, and bearing a closer relation to the benefit conferred by the particular individual, than to grant him the sole right to his writing or discovery for a limited period of time.

5. Under the patent law, the monopoly is limited to seventeen years; the monopoly is granted in exchange for the publication of the working formula; the formula must be published in such exact and explicit language as to permit any one skilled in the art to duplicate the product; the invention must be new and useful; the inventor must display greater skill than naturally to be expected from skilled physicians, pharmacists and chemists in the ordinary practice of their respective vocations; the Patent Office must furnish a description of the invention at a nominal cost to any one who may apply for the same; the patent is a contract between the inventor and the Government, representing the public at large; fraudulent claims made in applications for patents or in advertisements in their exploitation vitiate the contract and invalidate the patent.

6. The reasons why we object to the so-called proprietary system are these: It hinders progress in science by its secrecy; it injures scientific nomenclature by its system of fanciful names which are finally forced into the common language as generic or specific names; it permits non-inventors to obtain the rewards which should be granted to inventors only; it gives a higher degree of protection to non-inventors than the patent system gives inventors; it enables business men with no medical or pharmacal training to compete unfairly with physicians and pharmacists by appropriating physicians' prescriptions, giving them fanciful names, concealing their composition by secrecy as to formula or method of manufacture, and launching them on the public as specifics or cures when they are not; ignorance, incompetency and dishonesty receive by it protection, while honesty and endeavor to improve are discouraged; the name "proprietary" is a misnomer and deceptive, for no proprietaryship in formulas can be acquired by

trade-marks, and any pharmacist has a perfect right to make and sell the same thing under the same name when he knows how to do so, just so long as he does not injure other manufacturers or deceive the public by failing to so label his package as to show that the thing manufactured is the work of the one making it.

7. Finally, it is essential to the welfare of the community that the knowledge of preparing medicines, and applying them to the treatment of disease be conserved in scientific forms, and thus be protected from pretence, fraud, and error. This requirement demands that each medicinal drug and preparation be provided with a name compatible with the accepted principles of scienufic nomenclature and intelligently expressible in all languages; that the origin, nature, composition, and method of preparing all remedial agents of a drug character be published and readily accessible; that the various methods of preparation be used in common by pharmacists and submitted to comparative tests by physicians, so that those which, under given conditions, produce the best results be adopted as official; that practicable standards be established for the identity, quality, and strength of medicinal wares, and that all manufacturers be required to conform strictly thereto; that the properties of drugs and chemicals he determined by pharmacodynamic tests; that their usefulness as therapeutic agents be ascertained by clinical application; that the relative merits of various remedies recommended for the same diseases be published for the guidance of physicians; that methods be established for the readiest possible detection of impurities and deteriorations; that colleges be created and maintained for teaching the knowledge thus evolved to students, who shall go out and put the same to practical application, and obtain a livelihood by its practice; and finally, that the professions of medicine and pharmacy co-operate in the publication of knowledge of medicinal drugs and chemicals, and that the same be diffused to the professions in common by means of text-books and periodical publications.

This ideal can never be accomplished under the proprietary system of secrecy and perpetual monopoly. To carry it into effect necessitates fraternity and co-operation. Pharmacy must become a fraternity. The members of that fraternity must adopt beneficent, altruistic and co-operative effort in place of selfishness. The endeavor must be to elevate the fraternity itself, and in so doing elevate the individuals who compose the fraternity. This can be accomplished only by devotion to science, to the profession, and to humanity. Every pharmacist must freely donate the knowledge of his discoveries to the common fund of knowledge and receive his reward in the reputation and professional position gained thereby. If the scientific system of the patent laws can be made to contribute toward that end it should be endorsed. Medical and pharmacal books are copyrighted and science is the gainer by it. In similar manner science may gain by patents. And it is a question well worth considering whether it might not be advisable to grant copyrights for limited times on the names of medicines in exchange for the publication of working formulas. But secrecy and selfishness must be discouraged as inimical to professional and public welfare.

Mr. Stedem moved that the report, with accompanying comments, be referred to the Committee on Publication.

Carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: The next thing in order is the report of the Delegation to the Pure Food and Drug Congress, held March 7-9, 1900.

MR. STEWART: I indicate the presence of a committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Richmond, and I move that the privileges of the floor be extended to these gentlemen, and that they be invited to join in the debate on this report.

It was so ordered.