Vol. XXX.

THE

THE COURSE

OF THE

STEVENS BILL.

One who is in the habit of following the tortuous windings of a reform measure from the time it is first seriously thought of until it finds expression in some kind of a law, is not at all discouraged by the progress made by the price-maintenance measure originally known as the Stevens Bill-this in spite of the fact that the bill changes its name as often as does an habitual divorcée. The first draft of a measure of this character is usually little more than a tangible basis for legislative committees to work on; its form, often its scope, almost invariably suffers many alterations.

The original Stevens bill was faulty; had it passed, most likely it would not have stood a test in the courts. For that matter, it is doubtless a fact that it could not have secured enough support to have made it a law, for

No. 5.

there was pronounced opposition to some of its provisions from men who fully believed in the general principles involved.

Attempts to remedy some of these defects have resulted in a bewildering change of title -the Stephens bill; the Stephens-Ayers bill; the Stephens-Ashurst bill. With the introduction of each new measure-always the result of compromise, perhaps-hope has been renewed that we were a few steps nearer the goal. In fact, word has recently gone out that the Stephens-Ashurst bill is to be reported out of committee in a short time. It is confidently predicted that enough votes have been pledged to enact the measure.

N. A. R. D. OFFICERS NOT SATISFIED.

In this connection it may be noted, however, that a number of the officers of the N. A. R. D. have been to Washington lately, and if we are to base judgment on an editorial in a recent issue of the N. A. R. D. Journal, they are not altogether pleased by certain changes made in the phraseology of the Stephens-Ashurst bill while in committee. In fact, the statement is made that it "may shortly become necessary to cut the Gordian knot of compromise and get behind a congressional measure that is something more than a bundle of high-sounding words relating to a very desirable principle." Thus the rank and file of the organization may soon be called upon to withdraw its support of the bill now pending and to ask their congressmen to vote for a new measure.

Answering the editorial from which the above quotation is made, a sharp rap of remonstrance was first sent out by Secretary Whittier of the American Fair Trade League, which could not have failed to have struck fire at N. A. R. D. headquarters; and then, a few days later, J. Leyden White, who has resigned as the association's correspondent at Washington, addressed a circular letter to the retail drug trade in general in which several sizes of type were used to express his indignation.

Taken altogether, the situation suggests a number of possibilities-pending which it might be well for the innocent bystander to keep pretty close to the root-cellar!

The mailing of poisons has MAILING POISONS. been a subject of controversy for some time. It

was the apparent intention of Congress that preparations and substances of this character, when not outwardly or of their own force dangerous to other matter contained in the bags or to persons employed in the postal service, should be admitted to the mails, but under control of the Postmaster-General with respect to preparation and packing.

Unfortunately, however, the Post-office Department exceeded its authority in promulgating its early regulations; a court declared these rulings invalid, and the entire situation became somewhat involved. During the last year or two it has been extremely difficult to find out just what could or could not be done, the general situation being that poisons could not be mailed. This condition has worked quite a degree of hardship in certain instances, if not actual loss of life. A physician remote from a railway station, for instance, could not quickly get potent drugs for emergency cases. On the other hand, express companies have profited immensely.

Quite recently two new rulings have been issued which were hailed in some quarters as being much wider in scope than they really are. First came the statement that "a compound or preparation which is not a poison may be mailed even if it does contain a small proportion of poisonous ingredients." This is so restrictive, to begin with, and so indefinite altogether that it can be construed to mean little, if anything. The second ruling relates to preparations and remedies exempted under the Harrison law: these, we are told, "are not considered to be poisons and may be sent in the mails." When we remember, however, that preparations and remedies exempted under the Harrison law are almost invariably liquid, it will be seen that there is hardly ever occasion for sending them by mail.

So we are just about where we were before; the measure of relief afforded may be classed as occupying ground somewhere about midway between the intangible and the infinitesimal.

PURITY

AND SANITATION IN INDIANA.

The Indiana Board of Health has inaugurated two campaigns which are of interest to the druggists of that State-of all States, for that matter. One is an effort to ascertain the purity, or lack of it, of cheap drug products sold by five-and-ten-cent stores, and the other is to learn to what extent persons afflicted with skin or venereal diseases are employed in the handling of food products.

It is said that samples of ten-cent toilet preparations have been gathered from the stores of Indianapolis and that an analysis of them will be made by the State chemist. It is thought that wood alcohol is often employed in the preparation of this class of cheap goods, and should this suspicion prove true the offending merchants from whose stores the samples were collected will be rigidly prose

cuted. The movement is to embrace the entire State.

Investigations which have been quietly conducted for some time have revealed some startling conditions, in the matter of the handling of drinks, confectionery, and foods by persons afflicted with dangerous diseases, particularly, it is said, in restaurants and hotels; "truly terrifying," the situation has been phrased.

Druggists are coöperating fully in these movements, we are told. Indeed, they are directly interested, for practically every drug store in Indiana has either a soda fountain or a stock of confectionery, or both.

REMEDYING THE REMEDY BUSINESS.

The. New York legislature is still the center of what appears to be an attempt to "remedy" certain phases of the drug business. Hearst's New York American has been quite active, and what are known as the "Hearst bills" have created considerable discussion. One of these would prohibit the presence of narcotics in any quantity in proprietary preparations, the result being that it would be unlawful for a druggist to sell a compounded preparation, like brown mixture, for instance, except on a physician's prescription; and the other would make it unlawful for a druggist to dispose of a proprietary preparation containing more than 10 per cent of alcohol-except on the written prescription of a physician.

Then there is the Hamilton-Fertig bill, discussed in this department last month, which

would give the State Commissioner of Health the power to fix standards. This bill, also, is aimed at "patent" or proprietary preparations, and is said to be an attempt to work into a State law what the backers of the Goldwater ordinance have been forced to delete from their rather arbitrary attempt at discrimination in the city of New York.

It is said, however, that none of these bills has a ghost of a show at this session of the legislature. Only three out of twenty bills affecting pharmacy are scheduled for passage, it is stated.

** DILUTING"
NOT

· COMPOUNDING."'

*

When a druggist reduces the narcotic content of a prescription by adding other ingredients, he is "diluting," not "compounding," apparently. This seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the Harrison law ruling commented on last month in this department. However, the government will not tolerate bad faith, which perhaps would be shown were the diluent sugar-of-milk, water, simple elixir, or some similar substance.

This decision is intended to amend or mod

ify T. D. No. 2213, and permits the refilling of narcotic prescriptions, in case the original prescription was exempt as provided in Section 6. That is to say, if a prescription calls for a N. F. preparation, a U. S. P. preparation, or a preparation on the shelves already compounded, and if the preparation or product called for does not contain more than 2 grains of opium, 1⁄4 grain of morphine, % grain of heroin, or 1 grain of codeine to the ounce, then the prescription may be put up without regard to the Harrison law, and it may be refilled.

More than that, if the prescription calls for preparations embraced in the classes just enumerated, and if such preparations are "combined with other non-narcotic medicinal agents, with a consequent further dilution of the mixture," the prescription may be refilled without regard to the Harrison law.

anteed under," etc., would not be permitted after May 1, 1915. Later the going into effect of this regulation was postponed one year, in order that manufacturers might have time to use up labels on which the guaranty clause and the serial number were printed.

It now appears that a year's postponement wasn't enough. Thousands of labels are yet on hand; and in consideration of this, the government has extended the time to May 1, 1918.

WHERE HONOR IS DUE.

It is good to be appreciated. We have been pleased to see recently that three of the valiant workers in pharmacy have been recognized in one way or another. Dr. Julius A. Koch, whose appearance wouldn't indicate that he had been Dean of the Pittsburgh College of Pharmacy for twenty-five years, was recently made the guest of honor at a testimonial dinner in celebration of the event. John C. Gallagher, who has for many years been a central figure in State and national affairs, was presented with a gold fob and charm at a dinner of the Jersey City Druggists' Association. In the third place, a dinner is being arranged for Clarence O. Bigelow in recognition of "long, energetic, and unselfish work in behalf of the cause of pharmacy." The affair is in the hands of a general committee of fifty men, and that it will be a dinner of some importance may safely be predicted.

SUPPLYING NARCOTICS TO OFFICERS.

*

A Harrison law ruling has been issued to the effect that any official of the Federal government, or of a State, county, or municipal government, who desires to use or prescribe the restricted narcotics in his official capacity, need not be registered. However, should he prescribe, the prescription should be written on an official prescription blank, if such blanks are provided by his department, and the name and address of the patient and the name and title of the official should be stated. If such a medical officer is engaged in private practice also, he must comply with all the terms of the law when he is not acting in a strictly official capacity.

Druggists and other dealers who supply narcotics to exempted officials, or who fill or compound official prescriptions, should require that the orders and prescriptions be written on