THE MONUMENT
TO

WM. PROCTER, JR.

Sixteen years ago a committee was appointed by the president of the American Pharmaceutical Association to collect sufficient funds to erect a monument to the memory of William Procter, Jr., often termed the "Father of American Pharmacy." John F. Hancock, of Baltimore, has served as chairman of that committee during the entire period of its existence.

In 1914, it was reported that the required amount had been raised, the money coming in small amounts from all over the United States, thus being truly representative. The sum of $8000 was available. It was planned, however, to secure the consent of Congress to place the monument in the Smithsonian Institute grounds at Washington, and also to get Congress to appropriate $2000 for a suitable base or pedestal; and to that end a bill, known as H.

Chairman Hancock, Prof. Remington, E. G. Eberle and others have appeared before the committee to which the bill has been referred, and members of this committee did not hesitate to remind them that Congress receives calls for similar appropriations which average in the neighborhood of $16,000,000 a session; moreover that certain Treasury statements "indicated a hole to the extent of about $57,000,000."

Therefore it will be seen that some active work is yet necessary; and it is now being urged that druggists write to their congressmen in behalf of the bill, which must be brought out of committee and strenuously pushed, if it is to pass. The cause is a good one; let every man do what he can to assist Chairman Hancock and the other members of the committee.

A BIG WHOLESALE MERGER.

**

an

A consolidation of unusual importance has been nounced that of three large wholesale houses in the State of New York: Walker & Gibson, Albany; C. W. Snow & Co., Syracuse; and the Gibson Drug Co., Rochester.

A new holding company has been formed, known as the Gibson-Snow Company, Inc., having a capital stock of $1,000,000. Charles Gibson, of Albany, president of the National Wholesale Druggists' Association, and formerly president and treasurer of Walker & Gibson, is president of the new company; Charles W. Snow, of Syracuse, is first vicepresident; Nelson P. Snow is second vicepresident; and William W. Gibson is secretary and treasurer. Each business is to be conducted separately, as heretofore. The new company will have thirty-six traveling salesmen who will cover Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and parts of Connecticut, as well as New York State. It is estimated that the first year's business will be in the neighborhood of $4,000,000.

THE GOLD

AMENDED.

Influences back of the GoldWATER ORDINANCE water formula-disclosing ordinance evidently came to the conclusion that the phraseology of their measure called for a little more than any court was likely to allow. At any rate, the ordinance has been revised somewhat, the revision consisting of the deletion of two phrases, the absence of which largely emasculates the ordinance. It will be remembered that according to the old wording the Board of Health was given arbitrary power to deny registration to any "patent" medicine which did not meet with its approval; also that labels and advertising matter should be passed on and approved by the Board. The revised version does away with all this; in no instance does the remodeled ordinance authorize the Board to either grant or withhold its approval. The measure therefore becomes merely a device to compel manufacturers to list their preparations and disclose the active parts of their formulas to which a great many manufacturers do not object in the least. What they do object to is a group of men setting themselves up arbitrarily as a court of justice; for under the measure before it was remodeled the Health Board had power to refuse to grant registration to a preparation if the "Director of the Bureau of Food and Drugs" and the "Sanitary Superintendent" did not “approve" of it.

Just what effect these changes in phraseology will have on the three suits now pending (mentioned in detail in the February BULLETIN) it is hard to say. Both sides are at work, but the day for final hearing has not yet been set.

THE

BILL.

That the promoters of the HAMILTON-FERTIG Goldwater ordinance are not altogether idle, however, is shown in a number of ways, one of them being the introduction of a bill into the New York legislature known as the Hamilton-Fertig bill. What has been deleted from the ordinance under discussion has been made the vital part of this new bill. It is proposesd to clothe the State Commissioner of Health, "who must. be a competent physician," with power to fix standards of drugs.

Thus would be set up another arbitrary court, a State one instead of a municipal one, but with powers perhaps a little broader than those conferred by the Goldwater ordinance.

The Kings County Pharmaceutical Society, as well as other New York pharmaceutical associations, have come out against the proposed law, holding that it would "destroy the present concentrated control and supervision of pharmacy by the State Board," and that the pharmacists would "thereby be placed under the orders and supervision of two separate State departments." Especially is it contended that no one man, or any group of men, no matter how worthy, should have power to fix standards.

Thus the battle-front changes to Albany; and an interesting side-light may be noted in the fact that propaganda material in favor of the Hamilton-Fertig bill is being sent out in envelopes bearing the imprint of the New York

senate.

THE MAY 1 HARRISON LAW RULING.

Druggists should not overlook the fact that with the beginning of May a New Treasury Decision goes into effect-new in the sense that it will not be enforced until the date mentioned. mentioned. This is an amended form of T. D. No. 2244, issued last October. It will be recalled that so strenuous were the objections to the requirements of this ruling as it originally appeared that it was not put into force, but a hearing was held in Washington and the matter given detailed consideration. The rigors of the decision have been reduced somewhat, but it is still rigorous enough. Briefly stated, these are the requirements:

Beginning May 1, when any of the narcotics covered by the Harrison law are ordered, it will be necessary to state on the order form how much narcotic drug to the ounce the proIf the item orduct or preparation contains. dered is a pill or tablet, it will be necessary to state how much of the involved narcotic is contained in each pill or tablet. For examples we will use the illustrations employed last month: "Fluidextract of White Pine for Syrup, morphine sulphate 1 grain per fluidounce," and "100 Pill Anodyne (morphine acetate 1/20 grain)."

Such a course must be followed when the preparation or substance ordered is not an N. F. or a U. S. P. preparation. In case it is one of these, then the detailed narcotic statement may be omitted and the designating letters "N. F." or "U. S. P." may be used in its stead. The narcotic content need not be stated.

It must be remembered, also, that it is unlawful to order items other than narcotics on a government form. A physician's buggy case, for instance: the case itself must be ordered on an ordinary blank, the narcotics on a narcotic order form. The two must be separated.

LAWS AND DEPARTMENTAL

RULINGS.

Lawyers contend that there is a vast difference between an act of Congress and a departmental ruling based on the act. For instance, the definite provisions of the Harrison law are one thing, and a Treasury Decision quite another. The latter represents a combination of a department's opinions, interpretations and regulatory provisions, and might or might not be upheld by court decision.

Of course all this is quite obvious; one does not need to be a lawyer to comprehend it. Nevertheless, the average man feels that it is best to be guided by departmental rulings as long as they stand. He does not feel that it would be wise to enter into costly litigation with the government.

And sometimes such rulings stand for a long time before they are strenuously questioned, a case in point being an issue recently determined by Judge Anderson in the United States District Court at Chicago, in which certain standards set up by the Department of Agriculture under the Food and Drugs act were declared unwarranted and therefore illegal. The standards related to the strength, grade and quality of food products, and were promulgated in June, 1906, nearly ten years ago.

NO LEGAL FOUNDATION.

*

A spice company was prosecuted for alleged failure to live up to requirements, in that their extracts of peppermint and orange did not contain the 3 and 5 per cent, respectively, set as standards by the department. Judge Anderson dismissed the case, holding that in so far as foods were concerned the law itself imposed no definite restrictions other than that such products should contain no injurious or substitute adulterants and no diluents, and that the department had exceeded its authority when it supplied what it may have deemed a deficiency in the law. The ruling carried with it "great moral force," the court held, but no actual legal foundation.

NEW QUARTERS.

A Chicago commercial paper is authority for the statement that a new six-story building is to be constructed for the FullerMorrisson Company, wholesale druggists, and that the company has taken a lease for 25 years and three months, the total rental for the term being $669,125. The building is to be located on the northwest corner of West Randolph and Clinton Streets, and will be ready for occupancy February 1, 1917.

Since the merging of Morrisson, Plummer & Company and Fuller & Fuller, the result being the Fuller-Morrisson Company, the new firm has found its present quarters inadequate to meet the requirements of the business.

A NEW

On January 19, a committee TREASURY RULING. appointed by the National Drug Trade Conference consisting of Prof. Beal, Samuel C. Henry, and Chas. M. Woodruff appeared before the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and voiced its objection to the restrictions imposed by Treasury Decisions No. 2244 and No. 2213. A slight modification of No. 2244 was announced within a few days, and becomes effective May 1, as stated elsewhere in this issue of the BULLETIN; but it is only recently that the Commissioner's decision with reference to No. 2213