Chapter XIV: Section 3: This Act shall not take effect until the first day of July, (11)

It is limpid, of an aromatic odor—very sweet, and of an agreeable taste; it may be employed pure, or used to sweeten appropriate drinks.

Dose: from one to a number of tablespoonsful per day.—_Bulletin de Therap._

[24] The turpentine recommended by M. Dorvault is a variety of the Strasburg turpentine, having an agreeable odor of lemon.

ALOINE.—Our readers will recollect that Dr. Pereira has found Aloine, the chrystalline neutral principle recently discovered in Barbadoes aloes, by Mr. Smith of Edinburgh, in Socotorine aloe juice, (New York Journal of Pharmacy, No. 6, p. 177.) Since then Mr. Smith has succeeded in procuring it from Socotorine aloes. It was much longer in crystallizing than when obtained from Barbadoes aloes, but did so at last. When the impure product is recrystallized from rectified spirits it presents the same appearance as the purified crystal of Barbadoes aloes (the crystals obtained by Dr. Pereira which were spontaneously deposited from the juice, were much smaller) and seems identical with that substance. It has not yet been obtained from Cape aloes, but undoubtedly exists in that substance, though probably from its inferior activity in much smaller quantity.

Aloine has been introduced into the practice of medicine in Edinburgh, and the Messrs. Smith have already (June) sold a quarter of a hundred weight of it. It is five times more active than good aloes—a single grain producing all the effect of a large aloetic pill; the Edinburgh physicians describe it as acting “_tuto, cito, et jucunde_,” safely, speedily, and pleasantly. If this is meant altogether seriously, in the second of the characteristics it presents a marked contrast with the crude drug. From the convenience with which it may be exhibited, it bids fair to come into general and extensive use.

_Action of Sulphuric Acid on the insoluble residue left by Opium, exhausted by water. Formation of a new Alkaloid, by_ M. STANISLAS MARTIN.—The smallest object added to a kaleidoscope produces new shades and different images; so it is {319} with vegetable chemistry; every practical man knows that a foreign body, an hours delay in executing a work already commenced, changes the nature of the products. Two experiments on the inert residue of opium, exhausted by water give another illustration of this truth.

The residue of opium submitted to fermentation, affords us a substance which has a great analogy to paramorphia; this substance has since been studied by M. A. Guergy. The account of the labor of that chemist has been reproduced in the review of the Journal de Pharmacie, 1849.

Our second operation consists in treating the residue of opium exhausted by water, with water acidulated with sulphuric acid. The result is the formation of an alkali which has many of the chemical properties of narcotine, but which differs from it completely by its insolubility in ether.

This alkali has no relation with codeine or narceine; besides we obtain an extractive matter, soluble in all proportions in water, to which it communicates the property of frothing like soap.

The following is the method of proceeding. The residue of opium, exhausted with water, is boiled in distilled water acidulated with sulphuric acid, after ten minutes ebullition it has the appearance of a thick magma; it is strained with strong expression; when the colature is cold it is filtered through paper.

The colature is highly colored; its odor is similar to that of opium, its taste is exceedingly bitter.

Ammonia is added until litmus paper is no longer altered; the liquid is filtered, the precipitate washed with distilled water, and permitted to dry; afterwards it is boiled with a sufficient quantity of rectified alcohol and again filtered. The alcoholic solution deposits on cooling, numerous needle like crystals, colored by a brownish bitter resin. It is purified in the ordinary manner.

What are the therapeutic properties of this alkaloid, of the extractive saponaceous matter, and of the brown bitter resin! Do they partake of the properties of opium? We know not; the physician alone can determine their value.—_Bulletin de Therapeutique._

GELATINIZATION OF THE TINCTURE OF RHATANY.—Mr. Editor,—Some years ago having occasion to prepare some saturated Tincture of Rhatany, about eighteen, ounces were put aside in a glass stoppered bottle. The tincture being examined but a short time since, was found to be gelatinized, as is generally the case with old tincture of kino. Having never seen such a change before, I sought information, and ascertained through the United States Dispensatory that a French Pharmaceutist in Paris has remarked the same phenomenon, What is the cause of this remarkable change, attended as it is, with the loss of astringency? Is it not, perhaps, caused by the same action which produces peculiar exudation from the bark of certain trees possessed of tannin, retaining it for a {320} while and afterwards, when cut up in logs, losing their tanning properties and exuding a species of ulmine? Is it not the same process which takes place in the decomposition of the kino and rhatany? But why is catechu exempt from such a decomposition? If you can enlighten me, and especially can explain how to prevent this change, you will much oblige myself and numerous readers.

LIST OF DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION.—On the Sixth of this month the National Convention will meet in Philadelphia, and we see that our Philadelphia friends, with a reference to the convenience of the Delegates, have fixed upon 4 o’clock in the afternoon as the hour for assembling. The meeting will be held in the Hall of the College of Pharmacy, in Zane Street, above Seventh, which has been placed at the disposal of the Convention. As far as heard from, the following is a list of Delegates:―

_Philadelphia College of Pharmacy_,
DANIEL B. SMITH,
CHARLES ELLIS,
WILLIAM PROCTER, JR.,

_Massachusetts College of Pharmacy_,
JOSEPH BURNETT,
SAMUEL COLCORD,
SAMUEL R. PHILBRICK,

_Richmond Pharmaceutical Society_,
ALEXANDER DUVAL,
JOHN PURCEL,
JOSEPH LAIDLEY,

_Maryland College of Pharmacy_,
GEORGE W. ANDREWS,
DAVID STEWART, M. D.

_Cincinnatti College of Pharmacy_,
WILLIAM B. CHAPMAN,
EDWARD S. WAYNE,
CHARLES A. SMITH,

_College of Pharmacy of the City of New York_,
GEORGE D. COGGESHALL,
L. S. HASKELL,
JOHN MEAKIM.

{321}

NEW YORK

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY.

NOVEMBER, 1852.

ACCIDENTAL SUBSTITUTION OF EXTRACT OF BELLADONNA FOR EXTRACT OF DANDELION.

PROSECUTION OF THE MANUFACTURER.

In the Court of Appeals,

SAMUEL THOMAS, JR. AND MARY ANN THOMAS, HIS WIFE,

_Against_ HOSEA WINCHESTER.

RUGGLES, _Chief Judge_.

This action was brought to recover damages from the defendant for negligently putting up, labelling and selling as and for the extract of _dandelion_, which is a simple and harmless medicine, a jar of the extract of _belladonna_, which is a deadly poison; by means of which the plaintiff, Mary Ann Thomas, to whom, being sick, a dose of dandelion was prescribed by a physician, and a portion of the contents of the jar was administered as and for the extract of dandelion, was greatly injured, &c.

The facts proved were briefly these: Mrs. Thomas being in ill health, her physician prescribed for her a dose of dandelion. Her husband purchased what was believed to be the medicine prescribed, at the store of Dr. Foord, a physician and druggist in Cazenovia, Madison County, where the plaintiffs reside.

A small quantity of the medicine thus purchased, was administered to Mrs. Thomas, on whom it produced very alarming effects; such as coldness of the surface and extremities, feebleness of circulation, spasms of the muscles, giddiness of the head, dilation of the pupils of the eyes, and derangement of mind. She recovered, however, after some time, from its effects, although, for a short time, her life was thought to be in {322} great danger. The medicine administered was _belladonna_, and not dandelion.

The jar from which it was taken was labelled “_1/2lb. Dandelion, prepared by A. Gilbert, No. 108 John Street, N. Y. Jar 8.02_.” It was sold for, and delivered by Dr. Foord, to be the extract of dandelion as labelled. Dr. Foord purchased the article as the extract of dandelion, from James S. Aspinwall, a druggist at New York. Aspinwall bought it of the defendant as extract of dandelion, believing it to be such.

The defendant was engaged at No. 108 John Street, New York, in the manufacture and sale of certain vegetable extracts for medicinal purposes, and in the purchase and sale of others. The extracts manufactured by him were put up in jars for sale, and those which he purchased, were put up by him in like manner. The jars containing extracts manufactured by himself, and those containing extracts purchased by him from others, were labelled alike. Both were labelled like the jar in question, as “prepared by A. Gilbert.” Gilbert was a person employed by the defendant, at a salary, as an assistant in his business. The jars were labelled in Gilbert’s name because he had been previously engaged in the same business, on his own account, at No. 108 John Street, and probably because Gilbert’s labels rendered the articles more saleable. The extract contained in the jar sold to Aspinwall, and by him to Foord, was not manufactured by the defendant, but was purchased by him from another manufacturer or dealer. The extract of dandelion and the extract of belladonna resemble each other in color, consistence, smell and taste, but may, on careful examination, be distinguished, the one from the other, by those who are well acquainted with these articles. Gilbert’s labels were paid for by Winchester, and used in his business, with his knowledge and assent.

The defendant’s counsel moved for a nonsuit on the following grounds:―

1. That the action could not be sustained, as the defendant was the remote vender of the article in question, and there was {323} no connexion, transaction, or privity between him and the plaintiffs, or either of them.

2. That this action sought to charge the defendant with the consequences of the negligence of Aspinwall and Foord.

3. That the plaintiffs were liable to, and chargeable with the negligence of Aspinwall and Foord, and therefore could not maintain this action.

4. That according to the testimony Foord was chargeable with negligence, and that the plaintiffs therefore could not sustain this suit against the defendant; if they could sustain a suit at all, it would be against Foord only.

5. That this suit, being brought for the benefit of the wife, and alleging her as the meritorious cause of action, cannot be sustained.

6. That there was not sufficient evidence of negligence in the defendant to go to the jury.

The Judge overruled the motion for a nonsuit, and the defendant’s counsel excepted.

The Judge, among other things, charged the jury that if they should find from the evidence that either Aspinwall or Foord were guilty of negligence in vending as and for dandelion the extract taken by Mrs. Thomas, or that the plaintiff Thomas, or those who administered it to Mrs. Thomas, were chargeable with negligence in administering it, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover; but if they were free from negligence, and if the defendant Winchester was guilty of negligence in putting up and vending the extracts in question, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, provided the extract administered to Mrs. Thomas was the same which was put up by the defendant and sold by him to Aspinwall, and by Aspinwall to Foord.

That if they should find the defendant liable, the plaintiffs in this action were entitled to recover damages only for the personal injury and suffering of the wife, and not for loss of service, medical treatment, or expense to the husband, and that the recovery should be confined to the actual damages suffered by the wife. {324}

The action was properly brought in the name of the husband and wife, for the personal injury and suffering of the wife, and the case was left to the jury, with the proper directions on that point. _1 Chitty on Pleadings. 62 ed. of 1828._

The case depends on the first point taken by the defendant on his motion for a nonsuit; and the question is whether the defendant, being a remote vender of the medicine, and there being no privity or connexion between him and the plaintiffs, the action can be maintained.

If in labelling a poisonous drug with the name of a harmless medicine for public market, no duty was violated by the defendant, excepting that which he owed to Aspinwall, his immediate vender, in virtue of his contract of sale, this action cannot be maintained. If A build a wagon and sell it to B, who sells it to C, and C hires it to D, who, in consequence of the gross negligence of A in building the wagon, is overturned and injured. D cannot recover damages against A, the builder.—A’s obligation to build the wagon faithfully, arises solely out of his contract with B. The public have nothing to do with it. Misfortune to third persons, not parties to the contract, would not be a natural and necessary consequence of the builder’s negligence; and such negligence is not an act immediately dangerous to human life.

So for the same reason, if a horse be defectively shod by a smith, and a person hiring the horse from the owner is thrown and injured in consequence of the smith’s negligence in shoeing, the smith is not liable for the injury. The smith’s duty in such case grows exclusively out of his contract with the owner of the horse; it was a duty which the smith owed him alone, and to no one else. And, although the injury to the rider may have happened in consequence of the negligence of the smith, the latter was not bound, either by his contract or by any considerations of public policy or safety, to respond for his breach of duty to any one except the person he contracted with.

This was the ground on which the case of _Winterbotham vs. Wright. 10 Mees and Wellsby, 109_, was decided. A {325} contracted with the Post Master General to provide a coach to convey the mail bags along a certain line of road, and B and others also contracted to horse the coach along the same line. B and his co-contractors hired C, who was the plaintiff, to drive the coach. The coach, in consequence of some latent defect, broke down; the plaintiff was thrown from his seat, and lamed. It was held that C could not maintain an action against A for the injury thus sustained. The reason of the decision is best stated by Baron Rolfe. A’s duty to keep the coach in good condition was a duty to the Post Master General, with whom he made his contract, and not a duty to the driver employed by the owners of the horses.

But the case in hand stands on a different ground. The defendant was a dealer in poisonous drugs. Gilbert was his agent in preparing them for market; the death, or great bodily harm of some person was the natural and almost inevitable consequence of the sale of belladonna by means of the false label.—Gilbert, the defendant’s agent, would have been punishable for manslaughter if Mrs. Thomas had died in consequence of taking the falsely labelled medicine. Every man who, by his culpable negligence, causes the death of another, although without intent to kill, is guilty of manslaughter. 2 _R. S._ 662. § 19. A chemist who negligently sells laudanum in a phial labelled as paregoric, and thereby causes the death of a person to whom it is administered, is guilty of manslaughter. _Tessymond’s case, 1 Lewins’ crown cases, 169._ “So highly does the law value human life that it admits of no justification wherever life has been lost, and the carelessness or negligence of one person has contributed to the death of another.” _Regina vs. Swindall, 2 Car. and Kir. 232–3._ And this rule applies not only where the death of one is occasioned by the negligent act of another, but where it is caused by the negligent omission of a duty of that other. _2 Car. and Kir. 368–371._ Although the defendant Winchester may not be answerable, criminally, for the negligence of his agent, there can be no doubt of his liability in a civil action, in which the act of the agent is to be regarded {326} as the act of the principal. In respect to the wrongful and criminal character of the negligence complained of, this case differs widely from those put by the defendant’s counsel. No such imminent danger existed in those cases.

In the present case the sale of the poisonous article was made to a dealer in drugs, and not to a consumer. The injury, therefore, was not likely to fall on him, or on his vendee who was also a dealer; but much more likely to be visited on a remote purchaser, as actually happened. The defendant’s negligence put human life in imminent danger. Can it be said that there was no duty on the part of the defendant to avoid the creation of that danger by the exercise of greater caution. Or, that the exercise of that caution was a duty only to his immediate vendee, whose life was not endangered? The defendant’s duty arose out of the nature of his business, and the danger to others incident to its mismanagement. Nothing but mischief like that which actually happened could have been expected from sending the poison falsely labelled into the market; and the defendant is justly responsible for the propable consequences of the act.

The duty of exercising caution in this respect did not arise out of the defendant’s contract of sale to Aspinwall. The wrong done by the defendant was in putting the poison mislabelled into the hands of Aspinwall, as an article of merchandize to be sold and afterwards used as the extract of _dandelion_ by some person then unknown. The owner of a horse and cart, who leaves them unattended in the street, is liable for any damage which may result from his negligence. _Lynch vs. Mordon, 1 ad. and Ellis, U. S. 29, 5 Car. and Payne 190._ _Illidge vs. Goodwin._ The owner of a loaded gun, who puts it into the hands of a child by whose indiscretion it is discharged, is liable for the damage occasioned by the discharge. _5 Maule and Sel. 198._ The defendant’s contract of sale to Aspinwall does not excuse the wrong done to plaintiffs. It was a part of the means by which the wrong was effected. The plaintiffs injury and their remedy would have stood on the same {327} principle, if the defendant had given the _belladonna_ to Dr. Foord without price; or, if he had put it in his shop without his knowledge, under circumstances which would propably have led to its sale, on the faith of the label.

In _Longmead vs. Holliday, 6 Law and Eq. Rep. 562_, the distinction is recognized between an act of negligence imminently dangerous to the lives of others, and one that is not so. In the former case, the party guilty of the negligence is liable to the party injured, whether there be a contract between them or not; in the latter, the negligent party is liable only to the party with whom he contracted, and on the ground that negligence is a breach of the contract.

The defendant on the trial insisted that Aspinwall and Foord were guilty of negligence in selling the article in question for what it was represented to be in the label; and that the suit if it could be sustained at all, should have been brought against Foord. The judge charged the jury that if they or either of them were guilty of negligence in selling the _belladonna_ for _dandelion_, the verdict must be for the defendant, and left the question of their negligence to the jury, who found on that point for the plaintiff. If the case really depended on the point thus raised, the question was properly left to the jury. But, I think it did not. The defendant by affixing the label to the jar represented its contents to be _dandelion_, and to have been “prepared” by his agent Gilbert. The word “prepared” on the label must be understood to mean that the article was manufactured by him, or that it had passed through some process under his hand, which would give him personal knowledge of its true name and quality. Whether Foord was justified in selling the article upon the faith of the defendant’s label, would have been an open question in an action by the plaintiffs against him; and I wish to be understood as giving no opinion on that point. But it seems to me to be clear, that the defendant cannot in this case set up as a defence that Foord sold the contents of the jar as and for what the defendant represented it to be. The label conveyed the idea distinctly to Foord that the contents of the {328} jar was the extract of _dandelion_, and that the defendant knew it to be such. So far as the defendant is concerned, Foord was under no obligation to test the truth of the representation. The charge of the judge in submitting to the jury the question in relation to the negligence of Foord and Aspinwall, cannot be complained of by the defendant.

Judgment Affirmed.

A Copy. H. R. SELDEN, _State Reporter_.

MEM.—The original verdict against Winchester was $800; the costs of appeal, &c. swelled the amount to near $1,400, which was paid by Winchester.

NOTES IN PHARMACY, No. 5.

BY BENJAMIN CANAVAN.

SUCCI INSPISSATI PER AERE SICCO.—I take occasion again to notice these preparations, for the reason, that I perceive from a note, by the Editor of this Journal, appended to an article on “Cicuta,” &c., in the last (September) number: that he considers the extracts of Messrs. Tilden or Currie, superior to the best English extracts he has seen. I think, however, that on reflection, he will agree with me that those prepared by means of a current of dried air—some of which so made have been imported and used here—must particularly, when there is anything volatile about them,—be superior to all others; indeed, so favorably am I inclined to regard this process, that I think the profession, medical and pharmaceutical, should _demand_ its adoption by those engaged in the business of preparing extracts; until which is the case, I shall feel it incumbent upon me to use the imported article, as I have been in the habit of doing. Moreover, the relative virosity of the _narcotic plants_ of the {329} American and European continents are still in favor of the latter, although, if recent researches are to be depended upon, the difference is not so great as was supposed. Mr. Currie, I believe, prepares some at least, if not all his extracts with imported herbs, and in vacuo, and they are therefore the best made here; but these are the _dried_ herbs, and cannot afford as good an extract, ceteris paribus, as when the fresh plant is used. The English extracts of indigenous plants are, strictly speaking, _inspissated juices_, according to the _London Pharmacopœia_. The juice of a plant inspissated by air alone, and that quickly too, must be tantamount in its properties to the fresh plant whence obtained, so far as we are at present aware, or at least to the same, dried in the same equally safe manner; wherefore, I consider them preferable to all other preparations of the family of Extracts.[25]

[25] Mr. Canavan mistakes—the assertion was that the Extract of Conium, prepared by Tilden or by Currie, was superior to the best English Extract of that article we have seen, and a comparison of the odor of the two articles, under the influence of a little liquor potassae, will readily convince the observer of its correctness. The question as to the other Extracts is one of great interest, and we still believe it awaits a satisfactory solution.—[ED.]

SANGUINARINA.—Having been called upon to prepare some of this article, I undertook to do so by the process said to have been adopted by Mr. Dana, viz.: displacing the root with dilute acetic acid; precipitating by ammonica; boiling with purified animal charcoal; treating with alcohol, and finally evaporating the alcoholic solution, by which I obtained from two ounces of the root, about twenty grains only, having the sensible properties of the article very strongly, and being of a reddish brown color, assuming, when finely pulverized, an ochreish hue. It has been described as a “white, pearly substance,” which it might have become by more perfect discoloration, or the use of a different acid. The liquor from which it was precipitated, lost its peculiar taste, but not all its color, showing that the color of the root does not depend altogether on this principle, as was supposed. The article in question has been used by one practitioner, who stated it to have met his expectations, administered in doses of one sixth of a grain. The preparation in question is a very desirable one, as the objectionable taste of the ordinary preparations is a frequent bar to their use.

ALOINE.—On this subject it may be well to mark the fact, {330} that the officinal “ext. aloe purificat,” presents the active property of the aloes, freed from its griping quality, (though this is doubted; but the same doubt would seem to apply to aloine.) It is, however, about twice the strength of the crude extract, and is generally used when the “tuto cito et jucunde” effect is desired. The change which is supposed to take place in the aloine, from the heat used in the preparation of the purified extract, would only—according to the Messrs. Smith of Edinburg—prevent its crystallization, and therefore the extract should be equally advantageous, except, perhaps, in regard of bulk, which is not a very _great_ object.

ZIMMER TEST FOR QUINIDINE.—In employing this test, some modification of the original directions is necessary, in order to success. The word _drop_ is used, but it is doubtful whether _minim_ may not be meant, and if not, the difference in density of the liquids used would prevent our getting, by dropping, the correct quantities. This I found to be the case, and to save future trouble I give the minutiæ of the experiment as I performed it, with success; no evidence of the presence of quinidine being shown, as was expected:

℞ Aquae gtt. xxiij.
Acid. Sulph. C. P. gtt. vi.
Aether Sulph. _concentr._ gtt. lx.
Aquae Ammonia F. F. F. gtt. xx.

Et agita bene.

In each instance, the drops were allowed to fall from the lip of an ordinary quart tincture bottle, except the sulphuric acid, which was contained in a small pint tincture bottle, and of which I used _three times the number of drops_ directed; the drops being about one third the size of a drop of distilled water, which was shown to be correct, by the necessity for that quantity to effect a solution which took place without the aid of external heat. With regard to this matter of drops, it is a considerable eyesore. I would recommend to apothecaries, (perhaps it might be deemed worthy of the action of the convention), to agree upon some standard _size_ for the {331} drop,—say that of a drop of distilled water, under definite circumstances. It is true, we have a measure; but it is for minims not for drops, whilst in this way, by a little practice, the eye might be accustomed to the proper size of the drop, so that there would be little or no difficulty in obtaining an exact result, by increasing or diminishing the number of drops, according to the proportional size of its drop, to the standard one. Of course, when I speak of “keeping the drop in the eye,” I do not mean to imply anything incompatible with the Maine Liquor Law. I speak aquatically, not _spiritually_.

NATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL CONVENTION.

According to the arrangement which had previously been announced, the National Convention met in Philadelphia, on Wednesday the 6th of October, at 4 P. M. In the absence of Dr. Guthrie, the President, the Convention was organized by the appointment of Mr. Coggeshall, of New York, as President _pro tempore_; Mr. A. B. Taylor, of Philadelphia, as acting Secretary. A committee was then appointed by the Chair, consisting of Messrs. Ellis, of Philadelphia, Colcord, of Boston, and Laidley, of Richmond, to examine the credentials of the delegates present; and to report a resolution in regard to the admission of such apothecaries as might be present, who, though not {332} delegated by any incorporated institution, desired to attend the Convention.

The committee reported that satisfactory credentials had been presented by the following gentlemen:―

_From the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy_—Joseph Burnett, Samuel M. Colcord, Dr. Samuel R. Philbrick.

_From the College of Pharmacy, of the City of New York_—George D. Coggeshall, L. S. Haskell, John Meakim.

_From the Richmond Pharmaceutical Society_—Alexander Duvall, John Purcell, Joseph Laidley.

_From the Cincinnatti College of Pharmacy_—William B. Chapman, Charles Augustus Smith, Edward S. Wayne.

_From the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy-_-Daniel B. Smith, Charles Ellis, William Procter, Jr.

_From the Maryland College of Pharmacy_—Dr. David Stewart, George W. Andrews.

Henry F. Fish, of Waterbury, Connecticut, as the representative of the apothecaries and druggists of Hartford county, Connecticut. The following resolution was also offered by the committee:―

_Resolved_, That those gentlemen whose interest in the object of the Convention has induced them to meet with us on this occasion, be invited to take seats in the Convention, and fully participate in its proceedings.

The report and resolutions were adopted, and the committee continued to act on claims of delegates, and others not yet arrived.

After the roll had been called, the following gentlemen were invited to seats in the convention, viz.:―

CHARLES L. BACHE, of San Francisco, California. EUGENE DUPUY, of New York. EDWARD PARRISH and ALFRED B. TAYLOR, Of Philadelphia.

A committee, consisting of one from each delegation, was {333} then chosen to nominate officers for the Convention, and on their nomination, the following gentlemen were duly elected:―

DANIEL B. SMITH, of Philadelphia, PRESIDENT. GEORGE W. ANDREWS, of Baltimore, SAMUEL M. COLCORD, of Boston, C. AUGUSTUS SMITH, of Cincinnati, VICE PRESIDENTS. GEORGE D. COGGESHALL, of New York, RECORDING SECRETARY. WILLIAM PROCTER, JR., of Philadelphia, CORRESPONDING SECRETARY.

After the officers had taken their seats, the following report was presented by the committee appointed at the Convention, held the previous year at New York, “To act as a standing committee, to collect such information as maybe deemed valuable, together with memorials and suggestions from Medical and Pharmaceutical Associations to be presented to the next Convention.”

“The undersigned, a committee appointed at the Convention, held last year in New York, and instructed “To collect and receive such information as may be valuable, and memorials and suggestions from Medical and Pharmaceutical Associations, to be presented to the next Convention,” respectfully report: That in the period that has elapsed since their appointment—notwithstanding the fact of their readiness to receive any communications, having been duly announced—they have received no contributions towards the end or object of their appointment, except those relating to the inspection of drugs. They have, however, not been unmindful of the duty imposed upon them, and now offer the following suggestions, as tending to aid the business of the Convention, in so far as they exhibit some of the more prominent subjects, worthy of its serious deliberation and action.

1st, The number of pharmaceutists constituting the professional body in the United States is large, comprehends all grades of qualifications, and extends to every city and town in the country. The professed object of the present Convention being to adopt measures calculated to benefit this large body of citizens, in a professional point of view, by showing that there exist many grounds of sympathy between them, notwithstanding the present want of united action; we believe, that the institution of a national association, whose members may come from all sections of the body, is calculated to enlist this feeling of {334} brotherhood, and direct its power, as a reforming force, towards the elevation of the average standard of qualification now existing. In view of this, it is suggested, whether the passage of a resolution by this Convention, resolving itself into a National Association, should not properly engage its attention at its commencement, so that the important details of forming a Constitution—explaining the nature of its organization, &c. &c., might receive the deliberate consideration they merit, before being adopted.

As the basis upon which the Association will rest, will be the decision as to what shall constitute a member, we believe its ultimate usefulness will very much depend on the character of this decision, and we cannot refrain from presenting some reflections on the subject.

The inefficiency or inadequacy of the present basis, viz.:—Delegates from incorporated and unincorporated societies is here demonstrated, by the small number who have been appointed in answer to the call; at least, this must be true, so long as the process of local organization is so dilatory. The aim should be, to enlist as much as possible of the talent now engaged in the pharmaceutical ranks.

We think, therefore, that membership in the proposed association should be of a representative character, to as full an extent as practicable. Colleges and societies of pharmacy should, of course, send delegates. Then, provision should be made for the apothecaries, in cities and towns where no society exists, whereby they may send representatives, to the extent of one for every ten apothecaries, in such places; each representative to bring with him a certificate from his constituents. Finally, to provide for the admission of isolated individuals, who may not have neighbors sufficient to entitle them to act as representatives, but who feel an interest in the association. Power should be given to the committee, on credentials, under certain restrictions.

The formation of the constitution, and the preparation of a code of ethics applicable to the present condition of the profession; sufficiently stringent to elevate the members above many things now too prevalent, and yet not so binding as to exclude a large number, who, though well disposed, are unable to free themselves from participation in acts contrary to the highest standard, without a sacrifice greater than could be expected of them, should engage the wisest action of the Convention, to render them practicable in their working. {335}

2nd, The subject of _Pharmaceutical Education_ is, in the opinion of this committee, one of great importance, and deserving of the consideration of the committee, in several points of view. Indeed, the primary object of the Convention being called, was in reference to the improvement of the standard practice throughout the country; and this cannot be effected without extending the present means of education, either by schools, or by an increase of facilities, offered by proprietors to their apprentices and assistants. In too many instances the proprietors are illy fitted to extend to those whom they have engaged to teach the business of a Pharmaceutist the tuition that of right belongs to them. As schools of pharmacy are of gradual growth, and cannot be expected to exist, except in large cities, the Convention would do well to consider what subsidiary means may be enlisted to reach those of our brethren who reside in small towns. One of the first of these collateral aids will be found in local organizations, embracing the proprietors in such towns where, by a union of their exertions and contributions they may encourage pharmaceutical literature, by forming libraries, and uphold among themselves correct practice,—the employment only of good drugs, and the receipt of fair prices.

In France, where but three pharmaceutical schools exist, there are such societies in all large towns, which have halls and libraries, where their young men and apprentices have opportunities for gaining knowledge; and laboratories wherein they occasionally perform operations not easily executed with the instruments and utensils most usually found in shop laboratories. If such associations can be formed by the proprietors, they will soon influence the apprentices, and thus effect the object aimed at, to a great extent.

The superior advantages of tuition in well conducted schools of pharmacy will not be doubted, especially, when it is preceded by several years shop practice. Access to these, by young men at a distance, can always be had, when their circumstances enable them to attend, and thus finish their pharmaceutical education. The perfection of a school of pharmacy is attained by attaching to it a practical laboratory, wherein the advanced pupils can have an opportunity to become familiar with the more difficult manipulations of pharmaceutical chemistry, and of extemporaneous pharmacy. As yet, neither of the schools in this country have that addition, which arises from the fact, that the expense of conducting them, renders their support by the fees {336} of the pupils almost impossible. We think the voice of the Convention should be raised to encourage the formation of such schools, and also, to advocate the practice of preparing chemicals in the shop laboratory.

3rd, The apprenticeship system, which obtains, in many parts of the United States, is a subject worthy the consideration of the Convention. The conditions, conducing to mutual advantage, between the employer and the employed, are not sufficiently attended to in general. Proprietors often do not consider the fitness of applicants, both as regards natural endowments and preliminary education, with that care and attention that a due regard to such applicants demands; and consequently, a large number of inefficient apothecaries are entailed upon the country—inefficient from lack of talent, or from disgust at a business for which they have no inclination. More attention to the claims of apprentices, on the _teaching_ of their employers, should be advocated by the Convention as due to the former, as advantageous to the latter, and eventually to the profession.

4th, The committee believe that the subject of _secret medicines_, or quackery, as applied to Pharmacy, together with the course usually followed by quacks, in bringing their nostrums into notice, is becoming yearly more fraught with ill consequences, both to the consumers and the apothecaries, and merits the consideration of the Convention, as to whether the reference of the subject to a committee to investigate, would not result in some advantage.

5th, The subject of the _inspection of imported drugs_, as regards the _actual_ working of the law, is of deep interest to all. The possibility of bringing the influence of this Convention to bear, in regard to the continuance in office of able men, solely on the ground of fitness, is worth consideration. The usefulness of this law rests absolutely on the ability and conscientiousness of the inspector, and if incumbents, perfectly satisfactory to those concerned, are removed on political grounds, and replaced by inexperienced and unqualified persons, it is apparent that the good results of the law will cease.

Whatever may be the efficiency of the law against the importation of inferior drugs, it will not reach those _at home_, who are disposed to resort to adulteration as a means of increasing their profits. The power of the General Government ceases with the Custom House. It will be necessary in order to reach this evil effectually, as far as it can be {337} done by legislation; to induce our State Legislatures and Municipal Authorities to authorize some form of inspection by which the delinquents can be reached; not the drug adulterator merely, but the medicine adulterator—the apothecary who scruples not to reduce the strength of standard medicines, that he may reduce his prices. Whatever may be the proper course of this Convention, we believe that eventually the National Association should urge, with all the force of its influence, the enactment of State laws tending to the reformation of these evils.

6th, The general adoption of our _National Pharmacopœia_ as a guide in the preparation of officinal medicines, is much to be desired. We believe that this Convention should encourage its adoption, and should request the publishers of that work to issue a small sized cheap edition, so that every physician and apothecary shall have a copy. We also believe that a fruitful source of variation in the preparations of the shops, is the existence of a number of formulæ for the same preparation, as found in the British Pharmacopœias parallel with that of our own code, in the commentaries in general use.

7th, The _indiscriminate sale of poisons_ by druggists and apothecaries, as at present conducted, is a serious evil in the United States. Any views which may originate in the Convention, tending to abate this evil, would no doubt have some influence, if circulated by its authority.

8th, The separation of Pharmacy from the practice of Medicine, has long been effected on the continent of Europe, by the direct interference of the government, each profession being in the hands of a distinct class of men. Inheriting, as we do, our medical institutions from Great Britain, the confusion of interests which has long prevailed there has in some measure descended to us; and many instances of medical practitioners conducting apothecary shops, like the so-called _apothecaries_ of England, exist among us. The increase of this class in some localities has been marked of late years—a fact attributable to the “undue multiplication of graduates in medicine, who, finding the ranks of their profession so full as to render prospect of immediate success doubtful, turn their attention towards Pharmacy, as a subsidiary means of support. As these mongrel apothecaries too frequently use their shops merely as stepping-stones to business, they tend directly to depreciate the standard of practice on the one hand, and tempt {338} young apothecaries, who are struggling against the difficulties of an already excessive competition, to turn their attention to medical practice with or without a diploma, as may suit their circumstances or fancy, on the other, and thus complicate the confusion. As pharmacy never will advance as it should, whilst this amalgamation exists in cities and towns to any large extent, we earnestly recommend to this Convention, that a voice may go forth at its present session, calling attention to this growing evil.

9th, Believing, that if the Pharmaceutists of the United States are true to themselves, the Meetings of the Association, of which the present may be considered the beginning, will annually increase in interest and importance, we would suggest—what must have occurred to many present—that they should be partially devoted to the advancement of Pharmacy, as well as to the sciences on which it is based, by inviting contributions of original papers, and by committing subjects requiring investigation to suitable committees, who should report the results of their researches at the ensuing Annual Meeting, when, if they meet the approbation of the Association, it might direct their publication. Participation in the proceedings of such a gathering of their brethren, would prove a powerful incentive to many pharmaceutists, whose tastes lead them into scientific paths, to cultivate their talents by the pursuit of investigations fraught with usefulness to their profession at home, and with honor to it abroad.

And lastly, whatever may be the ultimate action of the Convention, in relation to the subjects brought forward in this Report, we would respectfully suggest that a full digest of its proceedings be directed to be published, and largely circulated among the Pharmaceutists of the United States, as calculated to do much good.

(SIGNED,)
WILLIAM PROCTER, JR.,
SAMUEL M. COLCORD,
GEO. D. COGGESHALL. COMMITTEE.

The Second Meeting of this Association was mainly occupied in reading and discussing a draft of a Constitution and code of Ethics.

THIRD SITTING, October 7th, 4 o’clock, P. M.

President in the chair.

On the roll being called, the delegates generally were present. {339}

The minutes of the preceding sitting were read and adopted.

The President informed the Convention, that the Business Committee not being ready to report, it was understood that Dr. Stewart, Examiner of Drugs, &c., at the port of Baltimore, had some statements to offer in regard to the working of the Drug Law at that port, and the Convention assenting, requested him to proceed.

Dr. Stewart stated, that as there had been some difference of opinion among the Drug Examiners, as to the intention of the law in certain cases, he desired the opinion of the Convention regarding the inferior class of Cinchona Barks that came from Maracaibo, Carthagena, &c., and other articles about which there is difference of opinion among druggists. In illustration of the difficulties of the subject, he remarked that one invoice of bark, that in a commercial point of view was not esteemed, and which came invoiced at ten cents per pound, had yielded, on analysis, two and a half per cent of cinchonine; whilst Loxa bark, invoiced at thirty cents per pound, had afforded but a fraction of one per cent. He considered the admission of the barks in question as quite different from deteriorated or adulterated drugs, in as much as they possessed a range of power which, though inferior to the best Peruvian barks, was yet useful, and capable of application in medicine.

He therefore offered the following resolution:

“Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Convention, that all varieties of drugs, that are good of their kind, should be admitted by the Special Examiners of drugs and medicines.”

Pending the consideration of this resolution, Mr. Coggeshall informed the Convention that Dr. Bailey, the Special Examiner of Drugs for the port of New York, had furnished, at his request, a report on the character of imported drugs, coming under his supervision, and on the general working of the laws, which, by request, was read. (Published in our last.)

A similar report from Mr. Edward Hamilton, late Drug Examiner at the port of Boston, communicated to Mr. S. M. Colcord, at his request, with a view to its being presented to {340} this Convention, was also read. (To be published in our next.)

Dr. Stewart then opened the debate on the subject, arguing that drugs, of whatever virtue or variety, so that they are good of their kind, should be admitted. In reference to Barks he could say, that perhaps a larger amount of the varieties of that drug came to the port of Baltimore than any other. That the merchants in that trade were so desirous of getting the best kinds, that it was quite usual for them to import specimens by way of the Isthmus, and have them examined before ordering their invoices, to ascertain whether they would pass the Custom-house, that he had, (as Examiner at that port,) chemically examined a large number of samples of the barks, both Peruvian and Carthagena, and that the latter had invariably contained more or less of alkaloids, and were generally of good quality, of their kind.

He therefore considered the fact that a drug is, or may be used as an adulteration for other drugs, should not exclude it if it is used to any extent on its own merits. In illustration, Dr. Stewart remarked that the Examiner might go on a vessel and observe, side by side, two casks of oil, consigned to the same individual, one invoiced “cod liver oil,” and the other “sperm oil.” On examination he finds that they are what they purport to be; the suspicion would arise very naturally, that the latter was to be used for adulterating the former, yet, should sperm oil be excluded, because certain parties use it for an adulteration? He thought not, and on the same grounds he considered that the inferior barks and rhubarb should be admitted, although some persons may use them for adulteration.

At the request of the President, Professor Carson, of the University of Pennsylvania, addressed the Convention on the subject before it. He coincided generally with the views of Dr. Stewart, as regarded the value of the drugs in question. He expressed the opinion that numerous varieties of the so-called Carthagena and Maracaibo barks, were possessed of decided medicinal virtue; that several kinds of European rhubarb {341} were of much value in medicine, especially in times when the officinal varieties are scarce, and that these drugs should all be admitted, when not deteriorated or adulterated.

Mr. Haskell, of New York, advocated the same views, more especially, as related to English rhubarb, bringing forward the testimony of Dr. Pereira, to the effect, that some specimens of Banbury rhubarb were almost, if not fully equal to the Chinese drug, and they were here even of rather higher price. He also stated, that a large demand existed in this country for the yellow Carthagena barks, that the House, of which he Was a member, sold large quantities in powder, and that the parties purchasing it did so, knowing its origin. He was not aware of the use to which it was put, but presumed that it was employed legitimately.

Mr. Fisk, of Connecticut, stated, that through the part of New England that he represented, considerable quantities of the barks in question were used legitimately, as tonics; and that no instance of their being used as an adulteration of the Peruvian barks had come to his knowledge.

Mr. Coggeshall on the other side of the question, called the attention of the Convention to the item in Dr. Bailey’s Report, showing that three hundred thousand pounds of these barks had been rejected at the port of New York, in about two years and a half. He argued that this bark was not consumed there; that it was not used in the manufacture of the alkaloids; that the allegation that it was used for making tooth powders would hardly account for the great consumption of it, and the question naturally arose for what purpose was it imported? He believed that it was used extensively to grind with the Peruvian barks, as an adulteration, and to make an inferior extract, which could be done cheaply and profitably, and it was largely sold as an officinal preparation, that many of the persons who came to our cities to buy drugs, were not able to judge of their purity, and bought them without asking any questions, save, as regarded price,—and so convinced was he of the application of these false barks to these false purposes, {342} that as a protective measure, in his opinion, they should be excluded. And also, in regard to English and other European rhubarb, that the argument of Professor Carson would not hold good while the markets were so well supplied with the Russian and Chinese varieties, to which the Banbury, regarded as the best of the European, was so very inferior. It might be used as a dernier resort, but should only be so used. Entirely independent of this argument, however, Mr. Coggeshall considered that European rhubarb should be excluded, because of its peculiar adaptation and general use as an adulteration, owing to its fine color, which enables the adulterator to improve the appearance of the inferior Chinese variety, to mix it with the Russian article in powder, without depreciating its appearance; or, as it is notoriously done, to a great extent, substitute it entirely for the true article.

Mr. Colcord, of Boston, advocated the latter view, and hoped that the Resolution would not pass.

Other members of the Convention joined in the debate, after which, the question was taken on the Resolution of Dr. Stewart, and it was lost.

As the importance of the subject introduced by Dr. Stewart, was fully appreciated by the Convention, at the same time that no direct course of action seemed proper for it to pursue, the following Resolution was offered by Mr. Smith, of Cincinnati, viz.:

“Resolved, that the whole subject of the Inspection of Drugs shall be referred to a Committee, who shall be instructed to confer with the Examiners, and endeavor to arrive at some practicable means of fixing standards for imported drugs.”

The resolution was unanimously adopted, and Mr. Taylor, of Philadelphia, Mr. Meakim, of New York, and Mr. Burnett, of Boston, were appointed by the President, to carry it into effect.

On motion of Mr. Procter, Dr. Stewart, of Baltimore, was added to the Committee.

[This Report is made up from the Report of the Executive Committee, published in Philadelphia. The conclusion of the proceedings will be given in our next.]

{343}

OBSERVATIONS UPON A GENERAL METHOD FOR DETECTING THE ORGANIC ALKALOIDS IN CASES OF POISONING.

BY PROFESSOR STAS, OF BRUSSELS.