fusal of the necessary 75 per cent of the RikerHegeman stockholders to record an acquiescing vote at a meeting held the first week in December. Objection is made on the ground that the proposed allotment of stock is unfair to the Riker-Hegeman stockholders, the latter claiming that under the blanket agreement they do not fare as well as do the holders of stock in the United Drug Company. These reports are denied by officers of the Riker-Hegeman Company, however, who claim that the inability to push the deal along according to schedule is due entirely to the fact that certain large blocks of Riker-Hegeman stock could not be represented at the meeting mentioned, owing to unavoidable conditions, and that everything would be rounded up and satisfactory arrangements made at another meeting, to be held later. It is also claimed that 80 It is also claimed that 80 per cent, 5 per cent more than enough, of the Riker-Hegeman stock is committed to the merger plan. Officers of both companies are in no sense. exercised as to the outcome. It is a big deal, they hold, and large bodies move slowly. AS IT SHOULD BE. * most It re In one respect the Illinois antinarcotic law has a point of superiority over other measures of a similar character. stricts the retail sale of narcotics absolutely to registered druggists. None of the proscribed drugs can be sold at retail in any quantity whatever except under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. Located in Chicago are the four largest mailorder houses in the world, and three of theseJohn M. Smyth & Co., Sears, Roebuck & Co., and Montgomery, Ward & Co.-deal direct with the ultimate consumer; that is, sell at retail. Under the Illinois law, therefore, they must have registered men in charge of their drug departments if they propose to sell a number of patents and a great many preparations which, while exempt under the Harrison law, nevertheless contain a small amount of one or more of the restricted narcotics. Early in December these firms were notified by the State Board of Pharmacy that strict compliance with the terms of the law was expected. It developed that the MontgomeryWard company was the only one living up to requirements. The others promised an early compliance. THE NATIONAL DRUG TRADE CONFERENCE. In several respects one of the most important meetings ever held by the National Drug Trade Conference convened at Washington, beginning on Thursday, December 16. The delegates present were John C. Wallace, New Castle, Pa.; S. L. Hilton, Washington; J. H. Beal, Urbana, Ill.; Chas. A. West, Boston; C. Mahlon Kline, Philadelphia; Geo. W. Lattimer, Columbus, O.; Samuel C. Henry, Philadelphia; Jas. F. Finneran, Boston; Frank T. Stone, Washington; Geo. C. Hall, Brooklyn; Dr. Alfred S. Burdick, Chicago (alternate for Dr. W. C. Abbott); R. C. Stofer, Norwich, N. Y.; Dr. A. R. L. Dohme, Baltimore; Chas. M. Woodruff, Detroit; Fred K. Fernald, Elkhart, Ind.; Philip I. Heuisler, Baltimore; and Harry B. Thompson, formerly of Chicago, but now residing in Washington. The organizations represented were the National Wholesale Druggists' Association, the American Association of Pharmaceutical Chemists, the National Association of Manufacturers of Medicinal Products, the Proprietary Association of America, the A. Ph. A., and the N. A. R. D. Apart from other important matters, detailed attention was given to Schedule B of the emergency tax law, objectionable treasury decisions in connection with the Harrison law, the Stevens bill, patent law reform, and-Lord save us!—the deletion of brandy and whisky from the ninth revision of the United States Pharmacopoeia. HARRISON LAW AMENDMENTS. It is the belief of the Conference that amendments to the Harrison law during the present session of Congress are inadvisable, for the reason that the measure is now in its formative period. Many points must be cleared up by court decisions. In fact, right now even the constitutionality of the law is questioned in some quarters. A case was being argued before the United States court, and during the arguments the judge asked if counsel was prepared to submit briefs covering the constitutionality of the measure-and postponed the hearing until such briefs could be brought into court. In view of this, and the further fact that even though the vital foundation of the act may never be seriously assailed, there are at least a half-dozen points which will find their way before the courts for final adjustment— because of this, the Conference very wisely takes the stand that Congressional tinkering of the measure at this juncture could only tend to complicate the situation; and the Conference will therefore oppose any action which may be taken to that end. TREASURY DE- Nos. 2213 and 2244. The Conference will, however, attempt to have the two objectionable Treasury Decisions (2213 and 2244) modified. A strong committee will go before the Treasury Department and submit arguments in behalf of the drug trade. It is hoped to bring about a change to the effect that "prescriptions" will be classed as "preparations" and will therefore be exempt from the rigors now imposed; will be placed on an even footing with Pharmacopoeial, N. F., proprietary and private formula remedies, in other words. In response to a request made by Chas. M. Woodruff, secretary of the Conference, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has instructed district collectors to take no action in the matter of enforcing the last paragraph of Treasury Decision No. 2244, the ruling which would require all orders for the restricted narcotics to have stated on them in terms of grains the amount of narcotic contained in the product or preparation-how much per fluidounce if the preparation is a liquid, or how much each pill or tablet contains. The time has been extended to February 1, and goods, meanwhile, may be ordered without regard to this unnecessary imposition. SCHEDULE "B." Congress repassed the Emergency Revenue law, which expired by limitation December 31, just as it was known it would. So the stamp on cosmetics and certain toilet preparations still sticks. The Conference views this act on the part of Congress merely as a continuing of the old order until the time comes when other arrangements can be made-until a new law can be passed which will at once take the place of and repeal the old one. It is hoped that the new measure may not lay so heavy and disproportionate a burden on the drug trade, and the Conference proposes to do what it can to bring about a more equitable adjustment. Resolutions were passed declaring Schedule B economically wasteful. It is contended that it costs the taxpayer $2 for every dollar that the government receives, and that it yields very little revenue. Congress is requested not to retain Schedule B in the forthcoming emergency measure. John C. Wallace was reëlected president of the Conference. The first, second and third vice-presidents are Samuel C. Henry, Dr. W. C. Abbott and C. Mahlon Kline, respectively, and Charles M. Woodruff was again made secretary and treasurer. J. H. Beal, Geo. W. Lattimer, Fred K. Fernald, Jas. F. Finneran and Dr. A. R. L. Dohme comprise the executive committee. "THE JOURNAL OF THE A. PH. A." It has been decided to transfer the Journal of the A. Ph. A. to Philadelphia. Henceforth the Journal offices will be in the Bourse Building, where free office room has been donated by the Drug Exchange. As long as Professor Beal remained editor of the Journal it was published in Columbus for reasons of editorial convenience. Since his retirement a year or so ago, makeshift arrangements have been the order of the day, but now, with E. G. Eberle definitely placed in charge, it was thought that some larger city ought to be selected as headquarters—particularly some city nearer to the advertising center of the country. Philadelphia has seemed to fill the bill pretty well, and Editor Eberle has now moved himself thence bag and baggage. Prior to leaving Dallas Mr. Eberle was dined and wined by his friends, chief among the participants at the farewell dinner being his fellow members on the Faculty of Baylor University College of Pharmacy. N. A. R. D. MITTEE MEETS. * * * The N. A. R. D. Executive EXECUTIVE COM. Committee met in Chicago in regular semi-annual session early in December. All members were present: Chairman J. J. Finneran, Boston; James P. Crowley, Chicago; Thomas S. Armstrong, Plainfield, N. J.; Robert J. Frick, Louisville, Ky.; Charles H. Huhn, Minneapolis, Minn.; and Charles F. Harding, Cincinnati. President M. A. Stout of Bluffton, Ind., and Secretary Thomas H. Potts, members ex officio, and Samuel C. Henry, Philadelphia, chairman of the Legislative Committee, were also present. The committee decided that the next annual convention of the N. A. R. D. shall be held in Indianapolis, beginning September 18. THE RECEIVER RELIEVED. During the financial stringency at the outbreak of the war, Meyer Brothers Drug Company, St. Louis, found itself unable to realize on certain assets and was forced to go, temporarily, into the hands of a receiver. Meanwhile, however, conditions have become much more favorable, and a plan has been sanctioned by the creditors whereby the company has resumed the conduct of its own affairs. Meyer Brothers Druggist asserts that the firm will continue the receiver's practice of discounting its bills, and will stand on a stable and permanent basis. This company is one of the oldest jobbing houses in the country, and a few years ago was reputed to be the largest in the world. EDITORIAL AN OPPORTUNE TIME. R. R. Ellis, president of the Hessig-Ellis Drug Company, Memphis, Tennessee, has sent out a letter to druggists in his city which appears to be well timed. It is at once a call and an appeal. It is an appeal to those who indulge in price-cutting to get together and revolutionize their habits, and it is a call for suggestions as to how the practice of price-cutting may be curtailed. We cannot state positively what Mr. Ellis's intentions are, but we infer that he proposes to inaugurate some sort of a movement by which it is hoped to bring about better conditions in the city of Memphis. As a rule country druggists are not addicted to price-cutting. They are so situated that it would be extremely foolish for them to do so. There is no large transient trade to go after, and there are no aggressive cutters to meet in competition. But both these conditions prevail in the cities, and a great many metropolitan druggists contend that they could not hold their own a week if they did not slash prices-which, in numberless cases, is doubtless true. Cities the size of Memphis, therefore, present a complex problem. Nevertheless, nothing has ever yet been accomplished by crying that it could not be done, and the BULLETIN is heartily in sympathy with any movement having for its object a bettering of conditions in the drug trade. Mr. Ellis states in the opening paragraph of his letter that he approaches the situation with a sincere desire to see the drug business improved, its standards restored to a former plane, and the druggist given an opportunity to make a better living. He realizes, he says, that the matter has received a great deal of consideration and that he can contribute little on that score, but-and here is the significant point he thinks that right now is the time to reopen the whole question and go to the bottom of it. In other words, if anything can ever be done at all by the druggists themselves now is the opportune time. And the point is well taken. Never has there been a time that we can recall when pricemaintenance was so far in the foreground with all the calciums playing on it as it is at the present moment. Thanks to the good work done by the Fair Trade League, the N. A. R. D. and other organizations in behalf of the Stevens bill, the man in the drug business who hasn't become saturated-well, that man can neither hear nor read, that's all. Then, too, there is another point. Suppose Memphis, or any other city, could be put on a full-price basis to-morrow-would there be much in the way of serious objection on the part of customers? Some, of course; but not nearly as much as there would be were we living in normal times. People are accustomed these months to price-raises; they accept them without question. Never in the history of this country have conditions been so favorable. For that matter, Mr. Ellis brings out the point that the public never asked for the concessions now granted, in the first place. Rather did the whole movement start on a basis the motives of which will not bear too close an investigation. Were the public taken into confidence and the situation revealed in its entirety, it is contended that no fair-minded man would object to a return to first principles. As Mr. Ellis puts it, “if a man wants Hood's Sarsaparilla he will pay $1 for it as readily as 65 cents. And it is right that he should pay a dollar.” Quite regardless of what may come out of the movement in Memphis, it must be admitted that Mr. Ellis has scented an opportunity which, so far as we are aware, had not before come under observation. THE TAX ON CERTAIN TOILET PREP- As passed by Congress last year, the act requiring a stamp on cosmetics, perfumery and other toilet preparations was not only inequitable, but absolutely unjust. The wording of the measure made it practically impossible to pass the tax along to the buyer, for how could a retailer split a cent into such fractions as eighths and quarters? To have added a cent to his selling price, when it was well known that the tax was an eighth of a cent or a quarter of a cent, would have been resented by the purchaser. He would have reasoned that the druggist was making a profit on an act of Congress; and the public is always only too ready to criticize the druggist on the score of profits. Had not the manufacturer come to the drug gist's rescue, the tax must necessarily have been borne by the retailer. Nor is it fair that the manufacturer should bear this burden, which under certain conditions may amount to 50 per cent of his net earnings. The manufacturer is confronted on the one hand by a confiscation of a part of his profits, and on the other by a greatly increased cost of the raw materials from which his products are made. Last year's law has been reënacted, temporarily, and later another measure will take its place. Should the new act impose the same requirements will the manufacturer duplicate his magnanimous performance of 1915? In case he should not, the retail dealer suffers another and a serious handicap, for it will be up to him to pay the tax. How can the retailer avoid further trouble in this particular? There is only one way, and that is to assist in the movement to have toilet preparations and cosmetics exempted from taxation. "Section B" has done enough. It should be relieved from service. Therefore if the druggist feels that a remonstrance from him would have any weight with his Senator or Congressman, or with both, he should not hesitate to call up the Western Union at once and contribute his share to the cause, in the form of a good healthy "kick." Let him simply state that he is not in favor of continuing the tax on toilet preparations, in the new emergency revenue act now under consideration by Congress. ADVERTISING ENGLISH. Some time ago we heard Professor Fred N. Scott, of the Department of Journalism of the University of Michigan, deliver a talk on "Advertising English." He declared that modern advertising copy, whether intended to exploit a twenty-five-cent toilet preparation or a $2500 automobile, should be written in plain, unadorned, straightforward language. There should be no striving for high-sounding effect; that is, the words should be chosen to tell in simple English the merit of the goods rather than to draw attention to the manner in which the advertisement was written. Coined words, foreign terms, slang, and flippant or smart-alecky expressions should be avoided. The copy should possess reserve strengththat is, it should give the impression that some of the good points of the merchandise in question had not been touched on at all. The advertisement itself should be set up in a plain and simple style. Gaudy type, spacewasting decorative borders, and meaningless cuts are out of place in every-day business advertisements. TOO MANY LAWS. During the winter legislatures will convene in a number of States and, as is always the case, a formidable array of bills affecting the drug trade will be introduced. It is fortunate, doubtless, that merely a fraction of those submitted will pass and become laws. On the other hand it is unfortunate that in many instances a lack of coördination of the interests affected will be more or less in evidence, and if history repeats itself the general result will be the writing into our statutes, in addition to those already there, of a number of restrictive measures which in no way benefit the public but which nevertheless serve as a handicap, or at least as a source of great irritation, to those legitimately engaged in an honorable calling. In February, last year, Dr. J. H. Beal stacked up on his desk the abstracts of bills. affecting pharmacy which were pending before the various State legislatures. The pile measured nearly eight inches in height, and each sheet represented from one to four or five bills. Dr. Beal estimated that if the original bills from which the abstracts were taken were brought together the pile would measure four or five feet in height. And this for approximately one-half of the legislative season! Too many laws-that is the curse of pharmacy to-day. It has become altogether too fashionable for the legislator who feels he must make a showing with his constituency to single out the drug business for his target. What is needed by way of defense is a getting together on a common basis. Dr. Beal holds that there should be a general agreement in all the States to the effect that drug legislation of every kind, no matter from what source it comes or by whom presented, shall be resolutely opposed unless it has first received the consideration of the national pharmaceutical organizations, and also of the association of the State where it is proposed for enactment. And it was largely for just this purpose that the National Drug Trade Conference was cre |