having this object in view was held in Washington, D. C., March 16 to 20. Representatives of both the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and of the Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties met and discussed the subject in detail. The committee representing the Conference of Faculties was composed of Julius A. Koch of Pittsburg, Henry Kraemer of Philadelphia, and Henry P. Hynson of Baltimore, while Wm. S. Flint of Massachusetts, W. P. Potterfield of North Dakota, and H. C. Christensen of Chicago, represented the boards.

The conference was preliminary, in a sense, and the matter will be given a much broader consideration when the two bodies representing the boards and colleges get together at the San Francisco meeting of the A. Ph. A., next August.

will be a triple-headed affair representing the Detroit Retail Druggists' Association, the Wayne County Medical Society, and the Detroit branch of the A. Ph. A. The speaker of the evening will be Dr. Victor C. Vaughan, of the University of Michigan, who is president this year of the American Medical Association.

Dr. Vaughan's subject will be "Poisons in Ordinary Foods," and he has made such a long and exhaustive study of this problem that he will be heard with keen interest. The druggists are hosts at the joint meeting this year, but physicians are planning to do great honor to the occasion by virtue of the fact that Dr. Vaughan is president this year of the A. M. A. A dinner will precede the lecture, and both will be held at the Wayne County Medical Building on High Street-April 19.

William

registration in the Empire State. Penn, who is proud of his pharmacy school, proceeded at once to resent this action on the part of Henry Hudson and Peter Stuyvesant, and the exchange of kind felicitations (pharmaceutical) began to wane.

The latest echo is caused by the introduction into the Pennsylvania legislature of Representative Theodore Campbell's amendment to the State pharmacy act, providing specifically that all persons who apply for examination must produce satisfactory evidence of being graduates of colleges of pharmacy "of this or some other State whose licensing board or other authority recognizes the graduates of the reputable and properly chartered colleges of pharmacy of this State, and admits the graduates of all such colleges to its pharmacy licensure examinations."

T. i. a. o.—which means "the italics are ours."

However, if there is any truth to that old saying about a certain uncomfortable feeling in the United States may find a little satisfacliking company, druggists and manufacturers tion in the thought that they are not alone in performing the Atlas act of bearing a world on their shoulders. For Canadian drug interests have been hit somewhat harder than we have, in the new Dominion tax act which has now gone into effect. As an illustration, patent medicines and perfumery are taxed at the rate of one cent for every twenty-five cents of retail value: a dollar package must bear a four-cent stamp.

However, in Canada the hope is entertained that the tax may be passed along to the consumer. Stamps are to be affixed at the time the sale is made over the counter, and the face value of the stamp is to be added to the price of the goods. This is one reason, it is stated, why the Dominion government imposed so heavy a tax-that it might be big enough to be handled in this manner.

EDITORIAL

HARRISON LAW TO BE BROADLY INTERPRETED.

There seems to be more or less confusion in the minds of a great many in the drug and allied trades in regard to the scope of the Harrison antinarcotic law. A much more advanced stand has been taken by the authorities in Washington than even the most enthusiastic Harrison law advocate had even idly entertained.

This may be better understood, perhaps, when it is pointed out that the advocates of the Harrison act viewed it as a revenue measure, a tax law, and as such they did not see how its scope could be broadened much beyond that covered by the act imposing a special tax of $25 a year on retail dealers in intoxicating liquors. In essence, it was thought, these two measures were very much alike.

Under the Harrison act it was planned to compel dealers in narcotics to pay a nominal special tax of $1 a year and to make it obligatory that certain written forms be employed in obtaining supplies of the restricted goods, and again in disposing of such supplies. In order that no man dealing in narcotics might evade the tax, and in order that the requirements in reference to the order forms and prescription blanks might not become a dead letter because of a lack of force behind the measure, severe penalties were made a part of the act.

It was thought that the law would impose a system of record-keeping on the part of those dealing in the restricted goods which would make it possible to check up the amount of narcotics bought and sold in any part, or in all parts, of the United States, and it was planned to make use of these records in securing the evidence necessary to convict in cases where not only Federal but State laws were being violated. In other words, while the act was deemed a tax law, incidentally it was expected to assist materially in the curtailment of a pernicious traffic in narcotics.

It does not matter that this incidental and indirect aspect of the situation was to be the most important one, the one, in truth, really aimed at. The fact remains that the organizations and individuals back of the Harrison

measure viewed it, for the most part, purely as a special tax law, with very limited possibilities in the field of direct prohibition.

The first move on the part of the government which indicated that a much wider interpretation was to be put upon the act was a ruling affecting physicians. The law states that the physician need keep no record of narcotics administered to patients whom he personally attends. The government interpreted the phrase "personally attends" to mean bedside visits, and ruled that it would be necessary for a doctor to keep a record of all narcotics used in office practice. This is a point that was successfully combated by physicians while the bill was before Congress.

Gradually, through a series of rulings, the government's position has been roughly outlined, and we are now able to determine pretty nearly what it is going to be. Enough is known, at any rate, so that there can be no doubt as to the general trend. We have come to see that efforts will be made to make the Harrison law much more of a law than everybody thought it was!

Briefly stated, the intentions of the Internal Revenue Department are to restrict registration to manufacturers, jobbers, brokers, druggists, physicians, veterinarians, and dentists; to put full police power back of the measure; and to have as many cases of infraction of the law as possible tried in the Federal courts.

And thus it is that a certain degree of confusion prevails just now. A number of nar

cotic laws have been introduced into State legislatures which seem to be much too complicated, when what the government intends to do is taken into consideration.

STATE ANTINARCOTIC LAWS.

Quite a number of the antinarcotic laws now on the books in the different States are out of harmony in minor details with the Federal measure. These discrepancies should be remedied, but it would seem that the best procedure would be to amend existing laws rather than erase them entirely and substitute new ones in their stead. For new laws, pushed through without careful consideration, and without proper provision having been made for their passage undisfigured by objectionable amendments, are often worse than the measures they displace. It would seem, too, that

should any general or model law be deemed necessary, it would be the best plan to let the National Drug Trade Conference sit in deliberation on the matter and bring out such a measure as conditions seem to warrant. It is to handle just such situations that the Conference was organized.

Among others, there are two points that should not be lost sight of in connection with proposed changes in State laws. First, an order or a prescription that is sufficient under the Harrison law should be given the same scope and latitude in each State; and secondly, the items exempted by State law should correspond with those exempted under the Harrison act in the interests of uniformity.

It is highly probable that in some States no changes at all are advisable until the full workings of the Federal measure have become known. The aim being complete coöperation, it might first be well to learn in detail what State laws will have to coöperate with. This is not yet apparent.

The position taken by the Philadelphia branch of the A. Ph. A. represents, in a measure, what would strike the BULLETIN as a sensible attitude. Resolutions were passed in March suggesting that bills pending in the legislature be held in abeyance until the situation could be thoroughly felt out.

TWO SALABLE ARTICLES.

The man who shaves himself finds the operation much easier than it used to be. There are chiefly two reasons for it. In the first place, the modern safety razor has enormously simplified the procedure of shaving. In the second place, the new type of soft shaving soap, put up in collapsible tubes like cold cream or tooth-paste, represents a great advance over the time-honored hard soap used in a mug.

Is every druggist alive to these facts? Has he obtained more business as a result of these developments?

Many a man shaves himself now who for merly patronized the barber-shop exclusively. He makes shaving as much a part of his morning toilet as he does washing his face and combing his hair. This means a bigger business in shaving requisites, and the druggist ought to seize upon the opportunity and make the most of it.

Many a druggist handles safety razors with

considerable profit to himself. And as for the new type of soft shaving soap, it has become a salable product in many a pharmacy. It is much more satisfactory in every way than the mug type of soap. It is more sanitary, inasmuch as the use of a dirty mug is obviated. It means fresh lather every time. The soap retains its pleasant perfume to the end, instead of losing it in three or four days. Nor is it necessary any longer to rub the lather into the beard. A man simply squeezes out a little of the soap onto his face and with a wet brush quickly works up a lather which softens the beard with economy of time and effort, and with much more delightful results than could be formerly obtained.

It is perhaps worth stating, too, that when you sell a tube of shaving soap you ring up a quarter on your cash register instead of five or

ten cents.

HARRISON LAW RHETORIC.

A rude hand has come upon the drowsy, dreamladen Valley of Narcosis, to rouse its people from their self-imposed stupor and threaten the revenue of those who traffic in the stuff of which its visions are fabricated and a mighty cry has arisen. Which it is that adds most to this dirge-like wail one cannot tell. Does the louder lamentation come from the weak-minded bender beneath the narcotic yoke, or from him, strong of mind, perhaps, but no stronger of morals, who has guised himself in the robes of an honorable calling to play the part of a stealer of intellects, a debaser of morals, the seller of dope? The wail of each is enough to rend hearts, even to move adamantine editors to a copious flow of inky tears.-HUGH CRAIG in the Journal of the N. A. R. D.

Hadn't we better send Hugh to the United States Senate?

AN APPEAL.

The editors of the BULLETIN would like to get some short, meaty papers from druggists on the sale of Fourth-of-July goods.

Please tell us how much of a stock you lay in, what profit the line yields, about what your annual sales are, and how you handle and push the goods generally.

Some practical recitals of real experiences are what we want. Can't you send us in a short paper right away within the next few days, so that we shall have it in time for the May BULLETIN?

We offer $5.00 for the best paper, and regular space rates for others.

next is to get the proper percentage of profit out of them on the one hand, and to make it cost as little as possible, on the other.

Generally speaking, a gross profit averages from 35 to 40 per cent. "Nebraska" gets a little better than 41.

Percentage of expense is 25.4. In the expense account, we are told, is a proprietor's salary of $1200, which is right and proper. Total income from the business is $3615.20. Percentage of net profit is 16.

FROM THE GREEN FIELDS OF VIRGINIA. Here we have a man who opened up a year ago. His cash sales for the year were $13,104, and $1188.40 of this went onto the books.

Inventory at beginning of the year, $3110; at the end of the year, $8113.13. This represents an increase in stock amounting to $5003.13.

Current expenses were $2200, including a proprietor's salary of $1000.

Now so far this makes good, smooth reading; but when we get to running these figures through the hopper, there are some of them that won't go. We are going to point out why. To get at the net cost of merchandise sold, we take the inventory of stock at the beginning of the year and add to it the purchases made during the year. This gives the total of goods that have been in the store, and the next step is to take the inventory of goods on hand at

the end of the year, and subtract it from the amount obtained.

Let us do this and see what we get. Inventory, beginning of year, $3110. Purchases during the year, $7185.35. This gives us $10,295.35. Subtracting from this the inventory at the end of the year, we get $2182.22. This represents net cost of merchandise sold during the year.

And for this $2182.22 worth of goods, "Virginia" gets $13,104! In other words, on $2100 worth of goods he makes nearly $11,000, gross, or more than $9000, net.

Something wrong, somewhere. "Virginia" will have to come again.