Page images

L. D

5.1. D. Parker

oped that the end miles



The general public is to be admitted, and a Snow, Syracuse; secretary, F. E. Holliday, handsomely executed pictorial scroll of the ex- New York. C. E. Bedwell, chairman; Geo. R. hibitors, called the “honor-roll,” is to be sent Merrell, A. D. Parker, F. C. Groover, and to every druggist within a radius of 400 miles L. D. Sale comprise the Board of Control. of Chicago. It is hoped that the show will

* * * prove so successful that a similar exposition may be held each year hereafter.

One of the new vice-presi

PRESIDENT AND A dents of the N. A. R. D. is * * *


de W. B. Cheatham, of San The forty-second annual Francisco. Mr. Cheatham was formerly an N. W. D. A. AT convention of the National N. A. R. D. organizer on the Pacific Coast, BALTIMORE.

Wholesale Druggists' Asso- having served in that capacity for five years; ciation convened at Baltimore October 2-6. and for three years he was the Pacific Coast The sessions were held in the roof garden of manager for the A. D. S. He now has retail the Emerson hotel, and Maryland hospitality interests in California's capital, and is also did much to mark the gathering as one of the president and general manager of the Associmost enjoyable that the association has held ated Pharmacists, a corporation doing a manu

facturing business. The organization is of a coöperative nature, and it will be recalled that it secured the services of J. Leyden White a short time ago, Mr. White taking on the title of “director of publicity.” A very creditable little monthly magazine, known as The A. Ph. Spokesman, is put out, Mr. White, of course, being the editor.

* * * The Michigan Board of Pharmacy has decided to grant to applicants who obtain an average of 75 but who fall below 60 in one or more subjects the privilege of making their low marks good at the next examination, or at any examination held within a year. When these subjects are thus taken up separately, however, a marking of 75 in each is required.


President-elect Jas. W. Morrisson. during all the years of its existence. Many matters of importance to the trade as a whole were taken up and the discussions proved un usually profitable. In the accounts of the deliberations special mention is made of retiringpresident Charles Gibson's address, and also of an address delivered by Dr. James H. Beal, who conveyed the greetings of the American Pharmaceutical Association. Chicago was selected as the next convention city, the matter of time being left to a standing committee. The following officers were elected: President, Jas. W. Morrisson, Chicago; first vice-president, Harvey H. Robinson, Baltimore; second vice-president, William Scott, Indianapolis; third vice-president, I. A. Solomons, Savannah; fourth vice-president, S. D. Andrews, Minneapolis; fifth vice-president, Nelson P.

[blocks in formation]

other turns over his stock twice a year and, EDITORIAL

therefore, has an investment of $3250. In the one case $1300 is tied up, and in the other case

$3250 is tied up. The man with the relatively THREE MISTAKES!

slow turnover uses $1950 more capital than The merchant who makes 10 per cent net on his sales

the other man, but what has he lost that the and turns his stock over five times a year makes 50 per other man has gained? Simply this—the incent on his invested capital. The man who makes the terest on $1950 that might otherwise have been same percentage on his sales, but who turns his stock put into outside investments. only twice, makes only 20 per cent. Wouldn't you

The interest on $1950, figured at 6 per cent, rather make $5000 per year than $2000 ?-Book, Stationery, and Novelty News.

is $117. Therefore it follows that if two men

do a business of $10,000 a year, and make 10 A pretty short paragraph to cram three mis

per cent net, the man who turns over his stock takes into, isn't it, but here they are:

five times will make $117 in actual money Mistake No. 1. Stock turnovers are figured

more than will the man who turns over his on costs instead of on the selling volume. And

stock only twice. How absolutely absurd, so “the merchant who makes 10 per cent net on his sales, and turns his stock over five times

then, is the question asked in the paragraph we

are criticizing: "Wouldn't you rather make a year,” really makes better than 50 per cent on his invested capital. He makes nearer 80

$5000 per year than $2000?” per cent on it with the average business.

Let us figure the thing out on the basis of Mistake No. 2. “The man who makes the

the investment involved. The man with five same percentage on his sales, but who turns his

turnovers has an investment of $1300, and if stock only twice,” makes more than 20 per

he makes 10 per cent net on his sales, he realcent. He makes over 30 per cent on his capi

izes a profit of $1000, which amounts to nearly tal if his business represents the average.

80 per cent of his investment. The other man Mistake No. 3. So far we have proved the

has a capital of $3250. Like his friend, he author's case better than he intended to prove

makes $1000 also in the way of net profit, but it himself, but now we must show that his en

in this case it is only a little over 30 per cent tire argument is false. Two merchants with

on his investment. One man makes his capital the same volume of sales, each making 10 per

yield 80 per cent and the other 30. This seems cent net, one turning over his stock twice a

like a heaven-wide difference, but in actual year and the other five times a year, do not

money it means only a little over a hundred make $2000 and $5000 respectively. Merely

dollars. turning over the stock five times instead of

A merchant who makes 10 per cent net on twice isn't going to make anything like a dif

his sales certainly makes that and nothing ference of $3000. It would ordinarily make

more, no matter how often he turns over his a difference of exactly $117—that's all.

stock. It is perfectly childish mathematics to This quotation from the Book, Stationery

assume that if one man turns over his stock and Novelty News is a good specimen of the

twice as frequently he makes twice as much loose thinking that prevails on this subject of

money. The only way this can be done is to stock turnovers. It is so loose, indeed, that it

sell twice as much goods. If, by greatly inwouldn't hold together for a single instant.

creasing your sales, you can sell five times as Let us analyze it briefly.

much goods, you will make five times as much Take our average merchant with sales of money. Or, if, on the other hand, you can sell $10,000 annually. His expense of doing bus- only twice as many goods, you will make only iness is 25 per cent, and his net profit is 10 per twice as much money. Under these conditions cent. These two items, therefore, total $3500, it would be perfectly proper to ask a merchant: and the cost of goods sold during the year is “Wouldn't you rather make $5000 per year consequently $6500.

than $2000?” Now take these two men with different turn- But that isn't what these mathematical jugovers. The man who turns over his stock five glers mean when they talk about increased times a year has an investment of one-fifth of turnovers. They mean keeping the stock low, $6500, which means a capital of $1300. The and buying from hand to mouth, so that you

reduce your investment on a given volume of will include compounding and dispensing labsales. The statements that continue to be oratories for the supply of the needed medimade on this subject are almost incredible, and cines. This means State competition for the yet they keep bobbing up time and time again, druggist. Three-fourths of all wage-earners and editors of trade journals repeat them with and their dependents are involved in this propout stopping to indulge in a little plain analysis. osition. Three-fourths of the druggist's busi

ness in drugs and prescriptions, therefore,

would leave his store and would be deflected to A NEW DANGER THREATENS. these public dispensaries. Such competition

would be far worse than anything the druggist Within the last few years a movement has

has suffered in the past, and in all conscience originated, and seems gradually to be gaining

the menace of it should be serious enough to headway, that will soon demand the determined opposition of druggists in every State

enlist his active and vigorous opposition. in the Union. The N. A. R. D. will be forced

But the druggist would be involved also as to jump into the breach and make use of its

an employer. If any one of his clerks became

ill, or suffered an accident, the druggist would powerful legislative machinery. What is this movement ?

be compelled to pay 40 per cent of all the costs. It is a plan to create compulsory health in

If the clerk were married, and had a wife and surance by the enactment of both Federal and

children dependent upon him, the same service State laws, and a society known as the Amer

would have to be granted them. Not only ican Association of Labor Legislation has been

would two-thirds of the clerk's wages have to created for the purpose of pushing the scheme

be paid, but he would be provided with free through. Bills were introduced last year in the

surgical, medical, dental, and hospital service, legislatures of New York, Massachusetts, and

where necessary, and there would also be fuNew Jersey. They failed of passage, but they

neral benefits in case of death. Even maternity will appear and reappear over the country until

benefits would have to be granted in case they success has been met or until the whole propa

became necessary at such a time. Forty per ganda has been given its death knell.

cent of all this expense, we repeat, would have The purpose of this proposed legislation is to be borne by the druggist as an employer. to provide compulsory insurance for all manual

In the third place the druggist is involved as laborers, no matter what their pay may be, a taxpayer. In any State where this scheme and for all other employees earning less than might carry, it has been carefully estimated $100 a month. In all cases of sickness or dis

that the taxes would easily be trebled. Does ability from accidents employees will receive the druggist want to lose three-fourths of his two-thirds of their wages during absence from pharmaceutical business on the one hand, and work. They will also be granted free medical on the other be made to pay three times his service, surgical and nursing attendance, med normal taxes? ical supplies, hospital service whenever neces

The whole scheme is a visionary piece of sary, dental work, and the like. Not only

socialistic and paternalistic theory of the worst that, but the same service will be given to all sort. It isn't necessary. There is no general dependents of employees.

demand for it. Even the labor people themWho is to pay for this enormous outlay? selves are against it, but it is being pushed with The employer will be charged with 40 per

ability and vigor, and if the whole propaganda cent of the cost, the employee with 40 per cent,

isn't headed off it is more than likely that we and the State is to make up the remaining 20 shall see such legislation enacted in different per cent.

States during the next few years. Where does the druggist come in, and why Organized associations in the drug trade, should he oppose such legislation tooth and both State and national, should join in the opnail?

position to this absurd scheme, and in the He is involved in three ways. In the first meantime the movement should be watched place, the plan proposes the establishment of with the closest of care and scrutiny. When “operating units” scattered thickly over the the bills make their appearance in various State State for rendering medical, surgical, hospital legislatures this winter, as they surely will, and nursing service. These “operating units” they should be fought with determination, and

our lawmakers should be made to understand that we want no European paternalism of this sort in free America.


all over the world? People who have sicknesses 24,000 miles long generally stay at home.

The truth probably is that the medical profession is still writing its prescriptions in Latin and calling its drugs by Latin names because of inertia. It takes energy to throw off an outworn custom, and the medical profession is just beginning to accumulate the required energy in adequate amount. A resolution to adopt English has already been offered in the American Medical Association; its adoption in the near future seems probable. Many eminent physicians concede that the only advantage in retaining Latin is to “keep the patient in the dark as to what he is taking,” which is not an advantage, particularly if, as may be suspected, it just as often keeps the physician in the dark as to what he is giving.

All of which causes us to ponder, after we have ceased smiling—or saying things. If newspapers, in all earnestness, will print such stuff as that, to what extent are we justified in believing anything we see in their columns ?

Some of us have the editorial-reading habit. Perhaps we are being hoodwinked.

A few weeks ago a Chicago physician, Dr. Bernard Fantus, came out with a plea for the

tus, came out with a plea for the use of English in the place of Latin in the writing of prescriptions. This is not the first time such a thing has happened, but because of

f the author's standing the paper attracted a great deal of attention. It is not surprising, therefore, that daily papers all over the country have commented on the subject, and not infrequently have made the most of the opportunity to take a fling at the prescription-writing profession and at the drug business.

We are indebted to J. J. O'Donnell, Pittsburgh. Pa., for a specimen of the comment re. ferred to, clipped from a Pittsburgh paper, and in spite of the fact that it will take up nearly a column of space, we are going to reproduce the editorial in full. Here it is:

Nothing could be more curious than some of the arguments used in defence of the medical profession's long-standing custom of writing its prescriptions in Latin. This official language of the ancient world still survives in the universities, and has not been wholly banished from religion, but in practical, every-day, worldly affairs it no longer exercises much more influence than the “p” in “pneumonia.” As the language of scholars, it was employed one hundred or two hundred years ago by men of high learning among all nations for the writing of their treatises on all kinds of subjects. But that use of it has passed, along with most others.

Learning in the twentieth century is held to consist not of misty philosophical dissertation but of scientific research, and an Englishman or American studying the literature of science will have ten times as much need of German as of Latin. In fact, not even books on medical subjects are written in Latin. The medical profession knows only enough Latin to write its prescriptions, and hardly enough even for that. Why,

1. even for that. Why, then, does prescription-writing in Latin persist?

About the only answer that a well-known physician is able to suggest in a published article on the subject is that "a prescription in Latin can be filled anywhere in the world.” But there's the very point. It can't. The apothecaries' clerks who do most of the compounding are generally as weak on Latin as on the origins of the New Testament. They know their own tongues --and ragtime—but that is as far as they go, and an honest doctor will admit that ignorant mistaking of Latin letters and words by prescription compounders has hurried hundreds of innocent persons into untimely graves. Besides, who wants to have a prescription filled

JOIN THE ASSOCIATIONS. Pharmacy is a profession—and pharmacy is a business. On the one hand there must be learning and its ethics, and on the other hand there must be the dollar and all that goes with it. Professionalism and commercialism: for better or for better or for worse they have been brought together and made to dwell under the same roof.

Roughly speaking, each segment is represented by a national association; and that is the reason that we have the two big bodies, the A. Ph. A. and the N. A. R. D.

Other spheres of human activity may call for only one organization of this kind. Bankers, hardware men. grocers, etc.—these can get along with a single central association. But the drug trade cannot.

Theoretically every druggist in the country ought to belong to both the national organizations; in practice a great many do not belong to either; and because there is so much discrepancy between the theory and the practice neither organization has the membership it ought to have.

This is all wrong. There isn't a man in the business who hasn't been benefited by both the A. Ph. A. and the N. A. R. D.; and the least he can do is to lend the moral support of his name and the financial aid that the payment of the really nominal dues would afford.

Join the associations!

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Here is a table that promises to be of great service to the druggist. It has been devised by E. C. Thulin.

Suppose, for instance, you desire to make a gross profit of 40 per cent on the selling price of a certain article. How shall you determine what this will amount to in dollars and cents? You cannot multiply forty by the cost price of the article, because the percentage of profit isn't figured on the cost. It is figured on the selling volume.

[blocks in formation]

This table solves the problem. It shows you what price you ought to charge to secure a gross profit of any desired amount. If you desire to make a 40-percent profit, based on the selling price, you simply multiply the cost price by 1.667. In the case of an article costing $1.00, you would therefore put a price on it of $1.67.

The table is easily understood. If you desire a gross profit of 30 per cent, multiply the cost by 1.429. If you desire a gross profit of 35 per cent, multiply the cost price by 1.539—etc., etc.

« PreviousContinue »