Be

Then precipitate out by adding water until reaction ceases. careful to use only clean glass vessels and white filtering paper, and do not be in a hurry to finish. Wash for at least ten days in order to remove all traces of the acid; then press with a spatula through silk bolting cloth. To this precipitate add 34 ounces of drop chalk. Rub this up thoroughly with one pint of alcohol after adding 20 drops of oil of rose geranium or attar of rose. Then add enough rose or distilled water to make 21⁄2 gallons of finished product. Fill up either three- or four-ounce bottles, using any style bottle to suit. Care should be taken when filling the bottles that the precipitate in each bottle should be equal; in order to do this the container should be well shaken each time a bottle is filled.

The author, Mr. J. L. Waller, said: "Care must be taken in the making of the preparation, and the directions must be carefully followed, or else the product will spoil; on the other hand, if the directions are adhered to a beautiful preparation results."

Shoe Paste.

P. B. M. wants formula for shoe paste, both black and tan. These pastes or polishes are mixtures of yellow wax and turpentine, varying in proportion as to the hardness of paste desired and the season of the year involved. Summer weather requires the use of more wax than winter weather.

The pastes are colored with ivory black and alcoholic solutions of aniline-orange, brown, and red. Sometimes palm oil is used. For a starter try wax, 1 part, and turpentine, 3 parts. Melt on a water bath and stir in the color desired. If palm oil is used, employ about 25 per cent.

F. P. C. says:

It Will Not Mix.

"On page 108 of the BULLETIN for March a formula is given for a horse liniment called '432.' I cannot make it mix. What is the matter with it?"

The formula referred to is part of an article by Frank Farrington on "Horse Cents." It is composed of ammonia, tincture of iodine, tincture of arnica, olive oil, spirit of camphor, and turpentine. It is a good, strong liniment and must be dispensed with a shake label, as it is impossible to make a clear solution with the ingredients given.

Remedy for Poison Ivy.

E. L. C. writes: "Would suggest that P. P. P. try peroxide of hydrogen as a remedy for poison ivy or oak. I have used it several years with good success, and I have had some severe cases. It relieves the itching and subdues the inflammation almost like magic."

A solution of sodium perborate might perhaps be used to good advantage.

We are obliged to E. L. C. for the information.

Color and Odor for a Bedbug Killer.

A. S. B. wants to know how to disguise the odor of a gasoline-naphthalin bug killer, and desires a method of coloring it red.

We do not believe it possible to disguise entirely the odor of such a mixture. It can, however, be modified with oil of cinnamon or synthetic oil of wintergreen.

Color it by macerating crushed alkanet root in the mix

ture.

Milk-white Chap Cream.

F. B. K. wants a formula for a milk-white chap cream. He says he is unable to get good results from formulas he has tried.

See answer to "J. W. R." in another column of this department. Try it again; if not successful, be more explicit as to the point on which you fail, and we will try and help you out.

T. M. R.-We are unable to give you the formula wanted.

THE PURE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS. Rules and regulations governing the interpretation and enforcement of "The Food and Drugs Act," as the national law is now officially called, were issued last month under the signatures of the secretaries of the treasury, agriculture, and commerce and labor. In many respects the 40 regulations are so comprehensive in scope as greatly to supplement the act, and able lawyers are not wanting who believe that the Commission has exceeded its executive powers and assumed legislative functions. Nevertheless, unless and until otherwise decreed by the courts, the rules and regulations will be enforced by the government authorities as part of the law itself.

The first regulation to interest the retailer is one increasing the scope of the provision requiring that

alpha and beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein." The following "derivatives" are now declared subject to this labeling provision: ether as a derivative of alcohol; apomorphine, dionine, and peronine as derivatives of morphine; codeine and its salts as derivatives of opium; chloralamide, chloralose, dormiol, hypnal, uraline, and chloral orthoform as derivatives of chloral hydrate; and acetphenetidine, citrophen, lactophenin, and phenacetine as derivatives of acetanilide. Still other substances are included in this list of derivatives, but they are so unimportant that we do not need to mention them at this time. It will be seen at a glance that this regulation is one of very considerable importance, greatly widening and enlarging the scope of the act itself.

The spokesmen for the pharmaceutical manufacturers, appearing before the Wiley Commission in New York a month or two ago, declared that it was exceedingly difficult in many instances to arrive at the exact content of alcohol in products like fluidextracts and tinctures, where the moisture in the crude drug, the evaporation of the alcohol during the process of manufacture, and other elements caused a considerable fluctuation in the results. Regulation No. 28 (d) accordingly asserts, with respect to alcohol and also to the narcotics involved, that it will be sufficient to state the maximum quantity or proportion of such substances, providing this maximum does not vary materially from the average quantity or proportion. Mathematical accuracy and precision are therefore not insisted upon.

Regulation 30 declares that, in the case of alcohol, the expression "quantity or proportion" shall mean the average percentage by volume in the finished product, and that in the case of the other ingredients the expression shall mean grains or minims per ounce or fluidounce.

In stating the content of alcohol and narcotics

upon the label, it is provided in Regulation 17 (c) and Regulation 28 (b) that type shall be used not smaller than 8-point caps-although "in case the size of the package will not permit the use of such characters the size of the type may be reduced proportionately." At the hearings in New York, Attorney Douglass, of the P. A. of A., raised the point that the Commission had no power to decree what size of type should be employed, inasmuch as such a ruling would in effect constitute an extension of the law and therefore be legislative instead of executive in character.

Another moot legal point involves the meaning of the phrase "original package." This question is one of vital importance, for, while the government has absolute authority over products in the District of Columbia and the territories, its jurisdiction elsewhere is limited to the original and unbroken packages which are the subject of interstate commerce. Regulation 2 defines an "original package" to mean the carton, bottle, phial, or other receptacle used as a unit by the manufacturer, and to which the manufacturer's label is attached. Attorney Charles M. Woodruff, of Detroit, has on the contrary declared that the federal courts have almost unanimously decided an original package to be the barrel, box or case in which the manufacturer or jobber ships an order of goods to the purchaser. If, however, as asserted in the regulations, an original package is a pint bottle of a fluidextract prepared by a manufacturer, say, and if, as the act declares, original packages are under the jurisdiction of the officials of the national government, then it follows that these officials may go into any State and take such a package from the shelves of the retailer and proceed against him or the manufacturer-providing the substance is found adulterated or misbranded. Now Mr. Woodruff contends that the national government has no such jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the States, and that the law, if held to give them any such jurisdiction, is therefore unconstitutional. The point is a very interesting one, and it remains to be seen whether the courts, turning their backs on previous decisions, will support the Commission in its interpretation of an "original package.".

The act itself provides "that no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this law when he can establish a guaranty signed by the wholesaler, jobber, or manufacturer." Much was said at the New York hearings about the form which this guaranty should take. Regulation 9 now permits

the use of two methods: (1) a general guaranty may be filed by the manufacturer with the Secretary of Agriculture, presumably covering all of that manufacturer's products; or (2) a guaranty may in every case be "attached to the bill of sale, invoice, bill of lading, or other schedule giving the names and quantities of the articles sold."

There are many other features of the pure food and drug regulations which might be mentioned, but we have touched upon those of greatest importance to the retailer. The general subject is of such significance, however, that we shall doubtless have occasion to return to it in future issues of the BUL

Besides the regular drug stock, we have a soda fountain, and we carry wall-paper, school books, stationery, seeds, and quite a line of holiday goods. The proprietor of this business is not registered, and I am putting my time and registration against his capital and what time he cares to give to the business, for "40 per cent of the net profits of the business."

From the above statement what should I receive as "40 per cent of the net profits" in addition to the $780 salary I am allowed?

I am pleased to add that the business increased $2132.23 last year. Would not the gross profits on the increase, less the increased expense, represent the net profits?

MICHIGAN.

This letter is not perfectly clear to us. We assume, however, that the proprietor and the manager have contracted that each shall have an annual sal

ary of $780, and that the net profits shall be distributed between them in the proportion of 60 per cent to the proprietor and 40 per cent to the manager. If this be the fact, the first thing to do is to discover what the net profits were last year, in order that a proper division of them could be made. There are at least two ways of arriving at the facts:

1. "Michigan's" statement shows us that the proprietor, in addition to his regular salary or allowance of $780, was able to take $1350.88 from the business for outside investments. The latter amount, then, represented that portion of the net profits which actually accumulated in cash. In addition, the statement shows us that there was an increase in the capital valuation of $88.08, making total net profits, therefore, of $1438.96. Sixty per cent of these profits belongs to the proprietor, and his share is accordingly $863.38. Forty per cent goes to the manager, and his share is $575.58. There would be sufficient accumulated cash to pay the manager's apportionment, but there would not be quite enough for the proprietor, since $88.08 of the latter's portion would be represented in the increase of capital. 2. Another way to get at the net profits would be, not to estimate the cash that actually accumulated as was done in the foregoing paragraph, but to estimate what the net profits should be theoretically from the showing made in the statement. Thus: The sales for 1905 were $12,224.10. The purchases amounted to $8361.10, but the inventories show that $547.53 worth of these purchases were not sold but went into permanent stock-that is, the stock was increased in value to that extent. Making the necessary deduction, then, we find that the goods. actually sold over the counter during the year cost $7813.57. Subtracting this figure from the sales, the gross profits are seen to be $4410.53. The total expenses, meanwhile, were $2919.52, including the salaries of the proprietor and the manager; and subtracting the expenses from the gross profits we find net profits of $1491.01.

Now upon comparing these net profits with those decided upon by the first method, we find a difference of $52.05. This might be accounted for in several ways: (1) a few small expenses during the year might not have been properly charged up to the expense account; (2) the inventories might not have been made with absolute accuracy; (3) or there might have been slight errors of other kinds. It would be fairer, of course, to apportion the profits upon the basis of the first method of calculation,

since that arrives at the actual and not merely the theoretical results.

Now let us estimate the percentage of gross profit and the percentage of expense exhibited in this business. The gross profits were $4410.53. Dividing this amount by the sales, $12,224.10, we find a percentage gross profit of about 36. The total expenses, including the salaries of proprietor and manager, were $2919.52. Dividing this sum by the sales we find a percentage expense of 24.

This we deem a very satisfactory showing. A percentage expense of 24 for a business of this size, and particularly when a salary has to be paid to a man who gives little time to the business, is fairly low, while a gross profit of 36 per cent is perhaps adequate-although many druggists succeed in attaining the 40 per cent mark. This leaves net profits of 12 per cent, and anything over 10 per cent ought to be considered satisfactory.

A STRONG CONVENTION.

Both the real friends of the N. A. R. D. and those who for selfish reasons wish its downfall have looked to the Atlanta Convention for answer to some very practical questions. How has it fared in numerical strength during the past year? Has its power been impaired by decline in the enthusiasm of the retail trade? With what showing of accomplished good can it go "before the country" with its appeal for moral and substantial support? Do its members work and pay? Are its prospects clouded by pending litigation?

It cannot be doubted that the Atlanta Convention has returned a ringing and convincing answer to these questions, or that the organization retains an unweakened hold on the faith, the support, the hope of the retail trade. The long journey to Atlanta did not prevent a large attendance. The personnel of the convention exhibited a high average of business ability and success. At every fitting occasion the affectionate devotion of the delegates burst out in enthusiastic demonstrations which no one present will soon forget. Despite the stupid, wicked inertia and apathy of many druggists, there is little question that the national organization is backed by a powerful, wide-spread loyalty, and that its prospects are as bright to-day as ever in its history.

A striking feature of the meeting was the general confidence that the attack of Attorney-General Moody would work no harm; that the pending liti

gation would fail, or that, even if it succeeded, it would prove no impediment to new, modified policies the legality of which could not be assailed.

Financial support measures the strength of most organizations. Of the 22,000 druggists in the various affiliated associations, about 16,000 paid their dues last year. Too much labor and expense is required to collect the wretched pittance contributed by the retailer to the maintenance of his most powerful engine, but, other means having failed, personal solicitation by the organizers is the only resource. The budget for the coming fiscal year contemplates the disbursement of more than one hundred thousand dollars-evidence enough that the work of organization and education will proceed with unabated vigor.

With absolute unanimity the delegates demand the direct-contract, serial-numbering plan, and will have no other. The Tripartite Plan at the Atlanta Convention was everywhere derided and rejected. It has ceased to be a rallying cry: it is now only an unpleasant memory of misplaced confidence and disappointed hope. But there was no disposition But there was no disposition to resent the proprietors' natural reluctance to adopt the direct contract and serial number until the Indianapolis suit had progressed far enough to assure the legality of the plan. It is not strange that a number of proprietors should prefer to wait and learn what the legal status of the direct contract really is.

A terse but complete review of the Atlanta meeting appears on another page. We hope every reader will turn to it and study it as befits its importance. It is a highly creditable summary of able performances and of powerful claims on the loyal support of the retail druggists of America.

THE SHERMAN LAW AND THE N. A. R. D. We have for several months gradually been developing views regarding the Sherman law which we are now interested to see expressed in an article contributed to the North American Review by the Hon. Chas. G. Dawes, formerly Comptroller of the Treasury. Mr. Dawes's opinions have considerable indirect bearing upon the "drug trust" suit now. dragging its weary length through the courts.

Mr. Dawes severely arraigns the Sherman law for its failure to distinguish "between those agreements in restraint of trade which are beneficial to the public and those which are detrimental." Many

of the evils in our business life are the outgrowth of unrestrained and unregulated competition, and certain agreements in restraint of trade really serve to keep alive competition and are formed for that very purpose. An agreement between competitors not to sell below cost, for instance, may be and often is of real public benefit. Mr. Dawes contends, in short, that a trade agreement, whether it relates to prices or otherwise, is not of necessity criminal; that it may have either a good or a bad purpose; that it may simply preserve private rights and privileges of trade not detrimental to the public, and that therefore the Sherman law should be so amended as to separate the sheep from the goats instead of continuing to put all the animals into the goat pen.

To us Mr. Dawes's arguments are unanswerable. The Sherman law was enacted over twenty-five years ago, in the light of the conditions as they existed at that time, and it is out of harmony with the changes which have since developed in our industrial and commercial life. As Mr. Dawes points out, this is the day of the trade agreement. In every branch of business it has been found necessary to establish rules and regulations, not to destroy competition, but to preserve it. "Understandings" or actual compacts are everywhere in evidence. In the failure of the Sherman law to recognize a good and even a necessary agreement lies its capacity to work great harm and injustice to the business system of the country.

It remains to be seen whether the courts will hold that an agreement amounting to "restraint of trade" was entered into by the N. A. R. D. It remains also to be seen whether, in case the courts hold there was such an agreement, it will be excused on the ground that it was a good agreement instead of a bad one. We are not lawyers. To decide whether the operations of the N. A. R. D. really constitute what the Sherman act defines as "a combination in restraint of trade" is beyond our understanding of law. But that the plans and methods of the N. A. R. D. have been commendable ones, that the organization has endeavored to preserve competition instead of destroy it, that it has operated in the interests of the great majority of druggists instead of in the interests of the few, that it has enabled pharmacists merely to act in self-defense, that its policies have been fully in accord with the democratic ideals of the country-of these things there is no doubt in our mind whatsoever.