An applicant on his sixth examination, age twenty-seven years, with four years' experience in a good store (undoubtedly a satisfactory assistant, as far as selling goods and attention to the strictly commercial part), proved fearfully deficient as a competent pharmacist. His rating was: oral, 10; written, 15; drugs, 0.

Another candidate says: "The difference between spirits and tinctures is that spirits are nine times stronger than tinctures."

A physician, fifty-three years old, and claiming ten years' experience as a pharmacist (from 1873 to 1883), and now thinking of opening a drug store, says: "The medicinal part of jalap is the rhizome; of colocynth is the seed, from which an extract is made; the official syrup containing Carb. Potass. is syrup Iodide of Iron." He would make boracic acid by treating borax to drive off carbonic gas; no difference between sublimed and purified sulphur; washed sulphur was made by washing sulphur with sulphuric acid; teaspoonful of laudanum contains 1 grains of opium; and when asked if he would give a teaspoonful, said he would not, it contained 22 grains of opium. When asked how he would make a pill of permanganate of potass, he said, "Use starch and some extract."

With such answers as given above, we submit it is not the fault of the Board that so many fail to receive a certificate of registration, and we suggest that section 5 of the law, which says, "Any person may be examined at any regular meeting of the Board upon the payment of a fee of three dollars," be amended, limiting the number of times a person may appear within a specified period.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE PHARMACY LAW.

During the past year many attempts have been made to induce the Board to recede from its action of suspending or revoking the certificate of registration in pharmacy, as required by law. It is an unpleasant duty to suspend or revoke a certificate of registration, and the duty is made hard and trying by influences brought to bear to force a change of action. Threats of prosecution, of repealing the pharmacy law and of testing its constitutionality have been made. In several cases where questions of law were raised by counsel we have felt justified in seeking advice from the office of the AttorneyGeneral, which has been promptly given.

As this part of our work has proven to be a necessity, great care and exhaustive investigation is made prior to final action. Some of the cases have been such as to excite our sympathy, but the Board have felt that public good should be the first consideration.

Sixteen sessions have been held, as follows:

Oct. 20, 1897: At this session three cases were ordered for hearing. One was a case of long-continued violation of law, and the certificate was revoked. The other two cases were continued for convenience of counsel, who could not be present. At this meeting there was also a petition for change of verdict in six months' suspension, but no change could be made.

Oct. 27, 1897: Three cases were considered. One was continued for sentence; one was placed on file; one was found guilty, but owing to the contention of attorney, action was delayed until a written opinion could be obtained from the Attorney-General.

Nov. 9, 1897: The verbal appeal, made Oct. 8, by a prominent physician, supported by a representative from a wholesale drug house, and later put in the form of a letter, seeking reinstatement of certificate revoked in 1894, was presented with the facts. After due consideration, the president was instructed to write that the Board declined to take any further action.

One certifi

Nov. 17, 1897: Five cases were considered. cate was suspended for six months, one for twelve months, and

one was revoked (the case heard October 27). This was a flagrant case, the charge being a violation of the liquor law. The evidence showed persistent sales of liquors from the soda fountain and on Sunday. One case was placed on file, as the respondent had left the State. One pleading release of suspension, it was voted no change could be made.

Nov. 30, 1897: Two cases were considered. One was revoked. In the other, the certificate was suspended for three months only, the facts being that no licenses were granted in the town but by general consent all the apothecaries sold more or less liquor. This man was complained of by local authorities, convicted, and paid a fine of one hundred dollars and lost his stock of liquors.

Dec. 15, 1897: An earnest plea was made by eminent counsel that the action taken November 30 be reconsidered. No effort was made to disprove facts, and, after due consideration, the Board decided that their action, having been taken under the law, could not be changed. In another case, the respondent appeared with counsel. Many witnesses were present. The charge was illegal sales of liquor. Counsel entered a plea of guilty, and requested the Board to delay final action, which request was granted. In the next case, the respondent asked for continuance, as his counsel could not be present. The request was granted.

Jan. 12, 1898: The first case heard was the one continued from December 15. Counsel appeared for his client, making an earnest appeal that the man should be saved, if possible; and, this being his first offence, it was voted to suspend his certificate for twelve months. In the second case, the respondent under oath made a clear and manly statement of all the facts, which coincided with the report made by our agent. It was voted to place on file. In the third case, the respondent refused to appear in answer to the summons. This was a flagrant case, as was shown by the evidence of several witnesses and court records produced. It was voted to revoke this certificate altogether.

Jan. 14, 1898: A special meeting was held for the consideration of various matters, and the Board appeared before the committee on public health.

March 23, 1898: This was apparently a flagrant case, but

the claim was made by the respondent that, having entered a plea of nolo contendere, and paid a fine, the Board were barred from action, claiming that there was no record of conviction, as required by statute. Continued for the opinion of the Attorney-General.

March 31, 1898: In the above case, the plea of no jurisdiction was thoroughly discussed, typewritten evidence of the hearing was carefully considered, and the unanimous opinion of the Board was, "Guilty of the acts charged," but sentence was again delayed for the opinion of the Attorney-General. In the next case considered, the charges were so clearly established that the certificate was revoked.

April 13, 1898: The case heard on March 23, and reviewed on March 31, was disposed of by suspension for twelve months. June 22, 1898: The party summoned to appear at 10 A.M. did not appear. At 11.15 the testimony of officers was taken and the case continued.

June 29, 1898: Counsel appeared in above case, making argument and plea for leniency. Certificate was revoked.

July 6, 1898: This was a complaint against a party known favorably to members of the Board many years ago. He appeared in his own behalf, raised questions of jurisdiction, and was sharp and critical in his cross-examination of witnesses. After careful consideration of facts clearly established, his certificate was revoked.

Aug. 23, 1898: This was the case of a drug store opened in 1895 by an unregistered person at one of the seaside resorts of the State. This store has given the Board much trouble. The original proprietor died. His successor (also unregistered) employed a registered man, and the conduct of the store became so notorious that the registered man was summoned before the Board, charges were preferred, and, after patient hearing and earnest appeal of counsel, the defendant was found guilty of the acts charged, and his certificate was revoked.

Sept. 23, 1898: At the above store was found the certificate of another registered pharmacist who was summoned before the Board. It appeared that the owner of the certificate had permitted his certificate to keep the store alive for about ten days, but had not himself been in attendance, nor had he been