50 parts in 1000 parts of fluidextract of belladonna. What can be the object of adding so small a quantity of camphor; does it have any therapeutic value in that quantity? (2) What is belladonna liniment used for? (3) In making chloroform liniment it sometimes separates into two layers; what causes this? (4) In the manufacture of soap liniment all previous pharmacopoeias directed the use of bar-soap in shavings, the present, or 1890, Pharmacopoeia directs the use of powdered soap; give the reason for this. (5) Why is soap liniment set aside for twenty-four hours after being made before it is filtered?

K

In making liquor pepsini aromaticus, N. F.: (1) Talcum is used as a filtering agent; why not calcium phosphate? (2) Why is hydrochloric acid used in the manufacture of liquor pepsini aromaticus, N. F.? (3) Why is sodium bicarbonate used in the manufacture of liquor pancreaticus, N. F.? (4) In making liquor carmini, N. F., why is water of ammonia used? (5) In the manufacture of liquor ferri iodidi and liquor ferri protochloridi, N. F.. the formula calls for the addition of a small quantity of diluted hypophosphorous acid; what is the object of this?

་

L

(1) What is carron oil? (2) Give formula and medicinal use. (3) Give formula for linimentum saponis mollis. (4) Give the official American name, also the name formerly applied to it. (5) Give the official formula for making sapo mollis; also give formula for tinctura saponis viridis composita, N. F.

M

(1) In making a pill mass of aloes, aloes and asafoetida, asafoetida, and so forth, soap is directed to be used as an excipient. Why is soap the best excipient for resinous substances? (2) What is the excipient in making compound cathartic and vegetable cathartic pills? (3) In making the mass for pilulæ ferri carbonatis, U. S. P., it is directed that the carbonate of potassium be dissolved in a small quantity of glycerin and water, and to this must be added the sulphate of iron and sugar previously powdered and mixed. Give the reason for this caution and procedure. (4) In making the mass for pills of ferrous iodide it is directed that the reduced iron be mixed with water contained in a mortar, and the iodine gradually added under constant stirring. Why the addition of water and other precautionary measures? (5) Why must pills of ferrous iodide be coated?

I have been asked by the editor of the Pharmaceutical Review to give a brief résumé of the pharmaceutical legislation of 1905, and I may properly begin by saying that the most important and significant law enacted during the year has been THE GRADUATION PREREQUISITE AMENDMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

A new legislative and likewise a new educational era was opened by New York in 1904 when a bill was' passed making graduation from an accredited college or school of pharmacy compulsory on the part of future pharmacists. Pennsylvania has been quick to start out on the path thus blazed. Her amendment provides that a candidate for the board. of pharmacy examination who desires to become the proprietor of a store "must present satisfactory evidence of being a graduate of some reputable and

*Reprinted from the Pharmaceutical Review of December.

This

properly chartered college of pharmacy." language vests the power of discrimination in the board of pharmacy, and the latter has decided the "reputable" institutions to be the 23 or 25 comprising the membership of the "Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties."

In order that the progress made by the graduation prerequisite movement may be properly understood in this connection, it may not be out of place to say parenthetically that Hawaii enacted the A. Ph. A. model pharmacy law two or three years ago, including even its graduation requirement, and that during 1905 the Wisconsin Board of Pharmacy has passed resolutions making a year of high school work compulsory at once, a year of 32 weeks in a school or college of pharmacy compulsory after July 1, 1906, and a full pharmaceutical course compulsory after July 1, 1907. Thus we see that three States and one Territory have now taken the ad

vanced step and 'have led in the vanguard of the new movement for higher educational requirements in pharmacy. The Pennsylvania amendment and the Hawaiian law affect the proprietor only, but the New York act and the Wisconsin resolutions make no distinction between proprietor and clerk.

FIVE NEW ANTI-NARCOTIC LAWS.

Accepting the Pennsylvania prerequisite amendment as the most significant law enacted during 1905, we may place as next in importance the group of five anti-narcotic and anti-cocaine measures passed in North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, Connecticut, and Texas. These bills are all of them open to criticism in one or more particulars; nor can it be said that their enactment has suddenly and completely stopped the illegitimate sale of narcotic drugs. But on the whole they are fairly efficacious, and they form gratifying evidence that pharmacists realize the necessity of curbing an evil which seriously threatens their good name and which in many sections of the community is more ominous even than the liquor curse. Altogether about 20 States now have some sort of anti-cocaine or antinarcotic laws on their statute books, not to mention. the city ordinances which may be found particularly in the leading southern communities.

A careful examination of the five new laws shows that the Beal or A. Ph. A. model anti-narcotic bill has been adopted with modifications in two cases. With the vital and unfortunate exception that proprietary articles are virtually exempted, the Texas measure is practically a replica of the model, and is on the whole doubtless the most satisfactory bill of the group. The Connecticut law, on the other hand, forms a brilliant example of how most of the starch in the model bill may be successfully extracted. A German on seeing the law would doubtless exclaim in surprise: "Such a limpness!" Two particular sources of strength in the model. are conspicuously absent: (1) No jail punishment is provided for, the highest possible penalty being the imposition of a fine of $25 or $50; and (2) there is no provision against the disreputable physician or dentist who may choose to defeat and nullify the law by furnishing prescriptions to habitués by the dozen at a nickel or a dime apiece.

proscribed narcotics to physicians' prescriptions, and declare that these must in no case be repeated.

Scope of the law: The Minnesota and Missouri acts involve the sale of cocaine only; the Connecticut act cocaine, eucaine, and their salts; the North Carolina act cocaine, opium, and morphine; and the Texas measure, broadest in scope of them all, mentions cocaine, morphine, opium, and chloral hydrate, failing, however, to follow the A. Ph. A. model and add eucaine and heroin also to the list.

Enforcement of the law: No one is charged with the duty of enforcement in the Missouri and North Carolina acts-a

serious defect; in Texas it is the duty of the grand jury to make presentments; in Connecticut certain courts are specifically given jurisdiction; and in Missouri the county attorney shall prosecute all complaints and shall have authority to examine the books of any manufacturer or jobber to aid him in obtaining evidence-a very good feature.

Curtailment of the physician's rights: The very important principle of the A. Ph. A. model, that the physician as well as the pharmacist shall be held responsible for pandering to the cravings of habitués and assisting in their downfall, is recognized only in the laws of Texas and Minnesota.

Proprietary preparations: Another important principle of the model, that any preparations (proprietary or othewise) containing more than certain specified quantities of the proscribed narcotics shall be involved, is recognized by more or less definite inference in the acts of Minnesota, Missouri, and Connecticut. The Texas measure specifically exempts proprietary articles unless they are "compounded or sold for the evasion of the act," while the North Carolina law has a ridiculous provision exempting preparations containing less "than 30 per cent of cocaine, morphine, or opium!"

Penalties: The Texas measure follows the A. Ph. A. model in providing for fines of $25 to $50 for the first offense, $50 to $100 for the second offense, and $100 to $200 and six months in jail for the third offense. The Missouri measure provides fines also, but makes 90 days in jail discretionary with the court after the first conviction. The North Carolina measure makes 30 days' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $50 optional with the court for the first offense. The Minnesota act makes from 30 to 90 days' imprisonment in jail discretionary, and also makes mandatory the additional penalty of a revocation of the license of any physician, dentist, or pharmacist convicted of violating the law. The Connecticut act provides only for a fine ranging from $25 to $50.

ANALYSIS OF THE ANTI-NARCOTIC LAWS. Analyzing the five anti-narcotic measures, we find them possessed of the following characteristics:

finished high school work. The law has several other valuable features, but possibly most important of all is its adoption of what might be called "the Massachusetts idea" with respect to the sale of liquor in drug stores. The board of pharmacy is given power to suspend the certificate of registration of any druggist found guilty in a responsible court of law of violating the State liquor act. Furthermore, the board is charged with the duty of enforcing this act, and it will have the appointment of "an assistant secretary" who shall not be a member of the board proper, but who shall devote his entire time to ferreting out violations of both the pharmacy and the liquor laws for the purpose of seeing that proper action is taken against the offenders.

This severe penalty for violation of the liquor law finds its duplication in a measure enacted in New York State. The New York law provides that whenever the liquor tax certificate of a pharmacist is cancelled in consequence of any violation of the law, his license to practice pharmacy shall be cancelled also. The measure was opposed vigorously by the druggists of the State, and every possible effort was made to prevent its passage in the legislature and afterwards its signature by the governor. Thus we see that the pharmacists of New York bitterly fought a law which the pharmacists of Michigan strove with equal determination to obtain for several years, and which they consider themselves very fortunate to have secured at last. The Michigan druggists believe that in no way can they so well head off undesirable liquor legislation, and likewise pull the fangs of radical critics, as by showing their willingness to correct the liquor abuses which admittedly exist within their own ranks.

FOUR "WOOD" ALCOHOL MEASURES.

It is not without significance that "wood" or methyl alcohol has figured seriously for the first time in the legislation of 1905. Four laws involving the use and sale of this substance were enacted, and a number of unsuccessful measures appeared in still other States. A Minnesota measure provides that the substance shall always be labeled "Wood Naphtha, Poison;" a Massachusetts measure provides similarly that it shall be labeled as a poison; a Connecticut measure puts methyl alcohol in poison schedule A, which means that it must be labeled "Poison;" and a New York law prohibits the use of methyl alcohol in beverages. It has been

found within the last few years that methyl alcohol is a dangerous poison-scarcely less dangerous when used externally than when employed internally; and great interest and concern have been developed in the subject by the remarkable findings of Drs. Buller and Wood, who reported upon 275 cases of poisoning in which death had resulted in 122 instances, and in which total and permanent blindness had been occasioned in about half of the remaining cases.

NEW LAWS IN IDAHO AND NORTH CAROLINA.

For the first time Idaho has secured during the year a pharmacy law which includes the entire State within its purview. Idaho and Texas have for years been compelled to worry along with county or sectional laws which have subjected them to the confusion and annoyance of a large number of pharmacy boards whom nobody knew anything about, and whose requirements and activities were hopelessly conflicting and paralyzing to all progress. Idaho has now thrown off the yoke, and it only One valuable remains for Texas to follow suit. feature of the Idaho law gives the board of pharmacy power to revoke the license of a druggist proved guilty of a felony or gross immorality, or of dangerous addiction to the use of alcoholic liquors or narcotic drugs. This provision was borrowed from the Ohio statute, and it is not without significance to observe in this connection that the Attorney-General of Ohio has recently decided that the board of pharmacy has power under this provision of the law to revoke the license of any druggist convicted of the illegal sale of narcotics.

In North Carolina the preëxisting pharmacy law has been succeeded during the year by a measure which follows the language of the Beal model adopted by the A. Ph. A. some years ago. Unlike the A. Ph. A. measure, however, it does not contain the college requirement, while it does contain some provisions made necessary as concessions, notably one giving registered physicians a right to conduct stores in villages of fewer than 500 inhabitants. The ancient query, "Who Owns the Prescription?" is answered by the Beal provision compelling the druggist to keep all original prescriptions dispensed by him for a period of not less than five years. Interchange of board certificates is provided for under certain proper restrictions, and the Board of Pharmacy is to be appointed, not by the governor in the time-honored manner followed in all States but one, but by the State pharmaceutical

THE PENNSYLVANIA SODA SYRUP BILL.

One of the distinctly unique bits of pharmaceutical legislation is to be found in the Pennsylvania act permitting the use of benzoic acid, sodium benzoate, and certain coloring agents in the preparation of soda syrup. The Pennsylvania druggists have been very much annoyed by arrests and prosecutions for the use of soda syrups artificially preserved and colored, and they have sought relief by legislation. Early in the last session of the State legislature they succeeded in obtaining the passage of a bill permitting the use of the foregoing substances. This was vetoed by the governor on the ground that he was not in favor of what might be termed permissive legislation. Thereupon the energetic pharmacists of Pennsylvania promptly hypnotized the legislature into passing a bill granting the desired rights by inference: the measure specifically prohibited the use of certain preservatives, but not the two desired by the druggists-benzoic acid and sodium benzoate. This bill the governor signed and it became law. If I am not in error, the measure also permits by inference the use of certain coloring agents as well as the preservatives mentioned.

PATENT MEDICINE LEGISLATION.

In preparing this review of the more important laws of the year the right perspective would not be gained unless something were said about the horde of measures affecting patent medicines which the season brought forth. Bills demanding that proprietary articles should contain their formulas upon the label, and others prohibiting the use of more than a prescribed percentage of alcohol, appear every year in a number of different State legislatures, but the number was rather greater than usual in 1905, and more than ordinary energy was exhausted in efforts to secure their passage. This was largely due to the crusade of Editor Bok in the Ladies' Home Journal. The customary type of formula-on-the-package bill appeared in several States, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. In Penn

restricting the sale of patent medicines containing alcohol in any quantity to physicians' prescriptions. Bills were likewise introduced elsewhere either

restricting or prohibiting entirely the sale of patents containing alcohol. The patent medicine barons have always been successful in securing the burial of such legislation, and they were as usual able to preach the funeral services this year in every case For the first time a bill slipped through:

but one.

it was in North Dakota, and it has given Mr. Bok and his friends so much encouragement that strong efforts are being made to enlist the support of the physicians of the country in an endeavor to secure additional laws of a similar type during 1906. The North Dakota measure provides that proprietary articles containing alcohol, chloral, ergot, morphine, opium, cocaine, bromine, iodine, or any of the salts, compounds or derivatives of these, must bear a label stating the amounts printed in black, open Gothic letters on a white background.

RECAPITULATION.

Recapitulating, then, we find that during the last year Pennsylvania has succeeded in establishing the graduation requirement; Michigan has made two years of high school work compulsory; North Carolina, Michigan, and Idaho have secured new pharmacy laws; measures restricting the sale of cocaine or narcotics have been enacted in North Carolina, Connecticut, Missouri, Minnesota, and Texas; measures restricting the sale of liquor have been enacted in Michigan and New York; Massachusetts, Minnesota, Connecticut, and New York have passed laws recognizing the dangerous character of methyl alcohol; Pennsylvania has made it possible for the pharmacists of that State to use certain preservative and coloring agents in their soda syrups; and in North Dakota a law has been enacted providing for the labeling of patent medicines which contain proscribed ingredients. In examining this considerable number of new acts, it is to be noted that the A. Ph. A. model pharmacy law has been made the basis of the North Carolina measure, and that the A. Ph. A. model anti-narcotic law has been adopted with modifications in the Connecticut and Texas statutes.