it seems that the lack of concerted effort is due to the combined effect of a number of causes, as follows:

1. The lack of interest displayed by the medical colleges in the practical application of the subject.

2. The erroneous impression among physicians who are qualified to write prescriptions in the metric system that very few druggists can compound them properly.

3. The use of alternate quantities in the National Formulary and in various text-books and commentaries on the United States Pharmacopoeia.

4. The controversy which has arisen as to the proper teaspoon and tablespoon equivalents.

When all of these causes have been eliminated and the committee from the American Pharmaceutical Association can show that it is a unit for the adoption of appropriate legislation in this matter, it will be possible to accomplish much more than has been done in the past, and then only will the efforts of this great Association be rewarded by the accomplishment of the task for which this committee was appointed.

CHARLES H. LAWALL, Chairman.

On motion of Mr. Roehrig, the report was received to take the usual

course.

Mr. Remington here asked permission to present a paper he had prepared entitled, "The Eighth Revision of the Pharmacopoeia," which he said he had not presented heretofore on account of a lack of time to give to it. He read the paper as follows:

THE EIGHTH REVISION OF THE U. S. PHARMACOPOEIA.

BY JOSEPH P. REMINGTON, CHAIRMAN.

The Eighth Revision of the U. S. Pharmacopoeia having been issued for a year and comments and criticisms having been received from all parts of the world, it would seem proper at this time for the Chairman of the Committee to present some facts in connection with the revision which may be of interest and aid future Committees of Revision. The work of collecting comments from the pharmaceutical journals and elsewhere and arranging these for study and improvement is going forward, but it might be well at this time to offer some considerations for the next revision based upon the experience derived from this one.

Much has been said about the method of selecting the members of the Committee of Revision, and as is well known the consensus of opinion is that twenty-six members form too large a number for smooth working and permitting decisions to be reached within a reasonable time. There is no doubt that before the time for the convention in 1910 a better plan for doing the work will be proposed. The delays in issuing the last Pharmacopoeia became very irksome to not only the Committee of Revision but to the country generally. The reasons for this delay have been so amply set forth in previous communications that it does not seem necessary at this time to more than touch upon them. It is interesting to look back now, read, and listen to the communications of those who were unfamiliar with Pharmacopoeial revision but who nevertheless suggested plans for the

betterment of the problem. One writer with a comprehensive instinct proposed that every State Pharmaceutical Association, every Medical Society or organized medical body, present a report upon the revision, and that during its progress, each body should receive complete information. about the work and be given a chance to object or approve of each step taken. If the work of Revision conducted by twenty-six recognized authorities in some branch of the work, required five years to reach conclusions, how long would it take this larger committee composed of forty State Pharmaceutical Associations, forty State Medical Societies, with five or six National Associations, together with the departments of the government, to reach conclusions?

Dr. Charles Rice, former Chairman of the Committee of Revision was deeply impressed in 1900 with the necessity for a change in the method of conducting the revision. At that time, he more than any other man in the country knew that a simpler plan should be devised, and if his health had permitted him to be present at the convention of 1900 he would have used every effort to have induced the convention to reduce the number of the Committee, and simplify the method.

If it were possible to conduct the revision by having monthly meetings, together with correspondence by letters, a large number of the more important questions could be decided through personal discussion, and much time would be saved; but with a Committee of twenty-six scattered all over the United States, it must be apparent that traveling and hotel expenses at such meetings would consume in one year about ten thousand dollars.

With a Pharmacopoeia of the scope we have at present, it would be impossible to complete the revision in one year. The number composing the Committees of Revision prior to 1860 was much smaller than at present as will be seen by the following: The 1820 committee consisted of five physicians; 1830, seventeen physicians; 1840, seven physicians; 1850, eight physicians and two pharmacists; 1860, five physicians and four pharmacists; 1870, ten physicians and five pharmacists; 1880, eleven physicians and fourteen pharmacists; 1890, nine physicians and seventeen pharmacists; 1900, eight physicians and eighteen pharmacists. In this list the word "physicians" includes those who are medical practitioners or engaged in teaching medicine, and "pharmacists" includes those identified with pharmaceutical pursuits or engaged in teaching some branch of pharmaceutical education.

From 1820 to 1880 it was possible to hold regular meetings because the average for these years of the number on the committee was eleven, but in 1880 the number of the Committee was enlarged to twenty-six and has remained so until the present time.

In each revision the work of editing the book and preparing it for the press devolved on the Chairman. It was his duty to harmonize divergent

views, represent the views of the majority of the committee and reach conclusions.

The experience of the last five years proves that it is quite a task to finally get a vote which will always represent such a desideratum. When a question is laid before the committee in a circular, some members have very pronounced views; in such cases the vote is quickly returned, and the Chairman congratulates himself that the question will soon be settled; later on a member proposes a modification, and some member writes he will vote "Yes" if something else is added or taken out. After waiting ten days for the distant parts of the country to be reached and the vote returned, the question must go again before the committee with a circular expressing the views of each member. The Chairman must then endeavor to show a way by which a majority can agree upon a satisfactory decision. A circular is then sent, and if the vote is not decisive, another ten days is consumed in settling the question.

When the writer was elected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Dr. Charles Rice on May 13th, 1901, one year had been consumed in organizing committees and deciding upon the preparations which were to enter into the Pharmacopoeia and those which were to be dismissed. A good deal of the time of Chairman Rice was consumed in parliamentary work, organizing the sub-committees, attending to the detail connected with the charter and reorganizing the whole work, and separating the strictly business part of the work from that of the actual revision.

While the convention of 1900 settled many knotty questions, many others were left for the Committee of Revision, and in the meantime enormous additions to the Materia Medica had been accumulating, and notwithstanding the experience and ability of Dr. Rice, at the time of his death the work of framing the list for admission and rejection had not been finally completed. This was largely due to the difficulty of getting twenty-six men to reach a definite agreement upon the admission or rejection of more than one thousand substances.

If in addition the votes of the representative medical and pharmaceutical institutions, associations, etc., throughout the country had been required before reaching decisions, it is plain to see that the Pharmacopoeia would not have been out to day.

The chairman of the committee desires to express his great appreciation of the work of the present committee. When it is considered that each man was busy with his own daily work, that he could not afford to lay aside his daily duties and give his whole time to the work of revision and that this labor of love was often carried on at a great sacrifice of his time and strength, it must be seen that the generally satisfactory character of the U. S. Pharmacopoeia was reached after vast labor, and that the revision was accomplished as soon as it was (when all the facts are considered) is a subject for much congratulation.

A comprehensive report giving briefly the views of pharmaceutical and medical journals, writers, chemists, botanists and others interested, is in active preparation, but at this time the chairman 'desires to state that the favorable comments vastly exceed the unfavorable criticisms. A few errors mainly in specific-gravity figures or test requirements have been pointed out, and the plates have been cut and alteration has been made; but such have been comparatively unimportant, and no error has been pointed out which would affect any interest seriously.

When it was foreseen that a change in the strength of some of the tinctures might cause serious results, as in the cases of tinctures of aconite, veratrum, strophanthus, etc., ample notice was furnished to the pharmaceutical and medical press sometime before the issue of the work, and the absence of any reported untoward results up to the present time must be attributed to the willingness of the editors of the journals to print conspicuously in their papers advance notices of the changes.

In no previous revision of the Pharmacopoeia were manufacturers of chemical, animal, and pharmaceutical products consulted to the extent that they were in the eighth revision. Not only was there a voluminous correspondence by the chairman, but the chairman of the various subcommittees diligently consulted manufacturers of special products, in order to be fully acquainted with their views, and facts were obtained upon which to base the standards. Necessarily the views of manufacturers were often found to differ from those of others manufacturing the same product. In such cases a decision was reached without fear or favor and the interests of the country as a whole was the only consideration. It would seem to be unnecessary to make this statement, but a communication received lately by the chairman from one of the pharmaceutical journals made it necessary for the chairman to make an explanation, and this is repeated here.

It may be interesting to this Association which has always taken a prominent part in the work of revision, to state that in comparison with the work done on the 1890 Pharmacopoeia as shown by the circulars issued by its chairman, that the work upon the eighth revision was far in excess of its predecessor.

The chairman of the 1890 committee issued 300 circulars containing 1,359 pages. The number in the eighth revision were 634 numbered circulars and the pages 2,277, with 370 pages of lettered circulars in addition, making a total of 2,647 pages. It will be observed that the total number of pages was practically double that of the 1890 revision. The comparison, however, is not complete unless the size of the pages of the circulars is compared. In the 1890 revision, the hectograph was used as a means of communicating information to the members; by taking a full page of one of these circulars, the number of words on the page was found to be 399. In the eighth revision mimeographed circulars were used because it was

found that they were more easily read, and about thirty-three per cent. more words (542) could be used on a page, with a great saving of expense in postage.

Some idea of the increased work may be obtained by comparing the amount of words in communicating with the members of the 1890 revision with those of the eighth revision; based upon the above figures the number of words for 1890, would be 542,241 and for the eighth revision, 1,665,618. These figures do not include the type-written letters and reports which passed between the members of sub-committees, particularly the Assay Committee, nor correspondence with manufacturers, experts, or private correspondence between the chairman, individual members of the committee, and others, on the work of revision. As can readily be surmised these would be represented by very large figures.

This paper is presented to the Association at this time because the publication of these facts is certainly due to the committee who labored so long and faithfully at their task and were severely censured for delaying the issue of the Pharmacopoeia; it should set at rest the criticism made by many who necessarily were unaware of the scope and magnitude of a work which involved so many details requiring care and time to investigate.

Mr. Sheppard moved to receive the paper, with the thanks of the Association to Mr. Remington for giving these data. He thought the paper a valuable one to spread upon the records, because there was no other place where these facts could be found so succinctly stated.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Roehrig, and carried.

The Secretary called for the report of the General Committe on Membership and Reception, which was read by the chairman, Mr. Mittelbach, The following is the full text of the report:

REPORT OF GENERAL COMMITTEE ON MEMBERSHIP AND RECEPTION. Your Committee has been busy since the Atlantic City meeting, and is pleased to report that its efforts in building up the membership of our Association is crowned with success. The enrollment of new members since the last meeting up to September 1st, is 190, a nice increase over any previous year. The assistance rendered the committee by local branches of our Association, in several of the large cities has been of great benefit, and your committee recommends this plan be encouraged and the formation of additional branches be carried out. Your committee desires to make special mention of the Chicago branch, and its work. That body has secured about 70 new members this year; which proves what can be done by systematic work. We are proud of our Chicago hustlers, and they are no doubt proud of themselves, for by their efforts they have not only helped the Association at large, very materially, but have placed their city second in point of membership. Two years ago they occupied 5th place. The loss of members each year, by resignation and suspension is a matter needing the serious attention of the Association. Steps should be taken to check this loss, if possible; out of 91 suspensions as reported in the 1905 proceedings, 59 had been elected in 1902, having paid only one year's dues, out of 33 resignations reported at the same time, 3 were elected in 1902, 5