the provisions of this act, and they the said board, shall report annually to the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Association all moneys received and disbursed under the provisions of this act. The PRESIDENT. erence to this clause? What is the pleasure of the Association in ref Captain SWEELEY. I move the adoption of it. The motion was seconded. Mr. DUBLE. Although a member of this committee, in looking over that, the question arose in my mind, whether to require this board to report to the Governor of the State and also to the Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Association might be the means of arousing some opposition. I do not want this adopted hastily. I want to know the chairman's intention in putting in that clause? Mr. REDSECKER. The suggestions to the committee, which were of course received from correspondents, were that all surplus moneys arising from this should be turned into the State treasury, as all other moneys of the State are turned in. But after consultation with some members of the Association, it was thought advisable that the board should hold this money, because prosecutions would arise, and, if turned into the State treasury, we would have nothing with which to conduct these prosecutions, or to assist the board in its work. Then the suggestion was made that the board should report to the Pharmaceutical Association, and they would have some sort of control over the board in the matter of its expenditure of this money. It was a suggestion made to the committee by a member of the Association. Mr. TURNER. I do not think it advisable to make this change, first, because I cannot see that anything would be accomplished by it. As this board is to be nominated by the Governor from twenty persons, known to be skillful pharmacists, there is nothing more than reason to believe we could by courtesy get this. To insert this provision I think it would jeopardize the bill before the House. I had some experience there two or three years ago, and I found a disposition on the part of the committee to criticise the bill very closely with a view to ascertain whether it was in the interest of a special body or not. I think this would give it the appearance of having been drawn up especially for the Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Association, without accomplishing any good purpose, as we have no authority to approve or disapprove of any action. I think we would get a report from the members of the board without encumbering the bill with this clause. Mr. REDSECKER. As a member of the committee, I do not feel like opposing the motion. It is a matter before the Association. Mr. HARRIS. I move that we strike out the words, "and to the Pharmaceutical Association of Pennsylvania." The motion was seconded. Mr. HARRIS. My reason for making this motion is: we have sufficient reasons from the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Turner,) but there is still another reason that occurs to me, and that is that the ordinary legislator might consider that this body was exhibiting considerable cheek to desire to be ranked with the Governor of Pennsylvania, and to be equal in authority with him in a matter of this kind, that we should be reported to the same as the Executive of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For that reason, if no other, I would favor the striking out. The motion was agreed to. The section, as amended, being before the Association, it was agreed to. Mr. REDSECKER. Section seven: Strike out all after "who," in the second line, to "shall," in the seventh line, so that the section will read, "that the foregoing provisions of this act shall not apply to or affect any person who shall be engaged in the retail drug and apothecary business as proprietor of the same, or as qualified assistant therein, at the passage of this act, except only in so far as relates to registration and fees as provided in sections three, four, and six of this act." Mr. MILLER (Allegheny) moved that the section, as amended, be adopted. The motion was seconded by Mr. ROBBINS. Mr. REDSECKER. It strikes out the words, who "shall have a diploma or certificate of authority from any incorporated college of pharmacy, and who can, in addition thereto, produce satisfactory evidence to said board that such person has had not less than four years' practical experience in the retail drug and apothecary business within ten years of the time of applying for such registration, or who." Now the reason: the committee advised the striking out of this is, that there has been objection to this section seven of the bill. There has been objection to the bill, because it has been claimed by those who have not taken care to study it sufficiently, that the bill affected all who were in business, and obliged them to undergo examination at the hands of this pharmaceutical board, and that is one of the causes which led to opposition of the bill when it was before the Legislature on several occasions. By a careful reading of it you will find that all those in business are exempt from 'examination; but it is the intention of the committee to make this so plain that there can be no misunderstanding. 66 Another reason: when it came before the Legislature there were always a number of physicians who wanted to add after the college of pharmacy, or medicine," and to tack on the bill those who were graduates of medical colleges, in order that they also might be authorized to have drug stores. They claim that they are the competent parties to have drug stores. In this case it gives all an equal opportunity, the apothecary as well as the physician, becasue it does not prevent those engaged in business from continuing, while all who purpose engaging in business, after the passage of the bill, will have to appear before the examining board and present satisfactory evidence as to their competency. Mr. PILE. 66 I see the section will read, as proprietor of the same, or as qualified assistant therein." Does that apply to the drug clerks in active business or not-the term "qualified assistant?” There is no such person now recognized in the State, except by the board that is controlled by the pharmacists of the city of Philadelphia. Mr. TURNER. That question was presented to me by the Judiciary General Committee of the House two years ago. They asked me what I meant, or the committee meant, by "qualified assistant.” I told them there was no such term known to the laws of Pennsylvania, and we could not give any qualification of that term; that it would be a matter for the board to determine upon after it was constituted—the board would have to fix the standard, and determine upon "qualified assistant." Of course, after the law goes into effect, it will mean a qualified assistant under the terms of this law. Professor MAISCH. I would ask whether this term "qualified assistant" would not include the "qualified assistants" under the Philadelphia pharmacy act. Mr. TURNER. If the committee has not made any change, the law makes a special provision which covers that. Professor MAISCH. Under the law of Pennsylvania they are quali fied assistants. If that is true, those who are registered as qualified assistants, have to be registered as such without examination by this new board. It seemed to me that was the intention. Mr. REDSECKER. I would like to have that determined. posed it was clerks who had served their apprenticeship, and that those regarded as qualified clerks at the present time would not be required to undergo examination. The section, as amended by the committee, was agreed to. Section ten-a new section, as follows: I sup SECTION 10. No person duly qualified and registered, under the provisions of this act, who supplies medicine or advice to such persons as apply to him at his place of business, but who does not go out to visit the sick, shall be required to register as a practitioner of medicine or surgery under any law of the State of Pennsylvania: Provided, He does not represent himself to be a physician, nor claim a professional fee or reward as such. Mr. CoxE moved that the section be adopted. The motion was seconded by Captain SWEELEY, and agreed to. Mr. REDSECKER. Change section ten to eleven, and strike out "the purchaser of which shall in all cases sign the entry," in lines six and seven, paragraph three. Mr. MILLER, (Allegheny,) seconded by Captain SWEELEY, moved that the amendment be adopted. Mr. WILLIAM B. THOMPSON. I should like to ask the chairman of the committee, as a matter of information, what is the character of the opposition to that clause. Mr. REDSECKER. A universal desire for its elimination from the proposed act. It cannot affect the city druggists so much, because they do not sell poisons perhaps as frequently as druggists do in the country; and it is very objectionable to the country druggists. A number of them have written, and especially requested it to be taken out, from the fact that many persons are afraid to sign their names to anything, having been "taken in," as you all understand, by sharpers. The fact that the druggist makes a register is itself sufficient, it is claimed. Mr. WILLIAM B. THOMPSON. I was anxious to know what constituted the opposition to that which seems to me to be a natural safeguard. The fact of the apothecary putting upon the package a poison label, which could be readily detached, is no security; and in the autopsic legal examination, if that is a correct term, where the authorities would be assisted in ferreting out facts in regard to the sale of poisons, it seems to me that apothecaries would be putting themselves in a better position, and sustaining what is a recognized means or method of safety in regard to it, and I can readily understand or see where the individual, by making a signature before the pharmacist, or in signing, or something of that kind, it would be of benefit. But, gentlemen, it seems to me this is a very important matter. Without identity of the purchase by the person of poison, the means by which it was obtained may be entirely lost. Now, will it not be wise to contribute, by sustaining this clause, to the public's common safety in the sale of these poisons? I believe, from long experience in this matter, if there is an evil existing to-day, it is the very loose and indiscriminate carelessness in the sale of poisons. It puts the apothecary, moreover, if no such a system prevails, in a very equivocal position-it puts him in the light of a very mercenary individual, that would sell anything of that kind for money. Now the fact that an apothecary would withhold a poison which may, from careless handling, produce injury or death, does seem to me to relieve us from general reproach and opprobrium. I do think it is a mistake to exclude that provision from that clause. Mr. DURHAM. In this connection, I undertook to answer some points at some length; but I was not able to answer satisfactorily at all. It seems to me that this is inconsistent with the fourth paragraph. If we are required to keep a register, and a person can go across the street and purchase an insecticide, it is not very likely we can prevent him going and purchasing that which will bring about the desired result. I think this clause will take it out of the apothecary's store, and throw it to the country store, or to those who will keep this insecticide. As regards persons signing a register, I have no objection either way. A person is perfectly willing to sign a register when he can read. In my own experience I have known persons to come in and ask boldly for arsenic, and not only ask for it, but say they intended to take it. They would not hesitate to sign a register. I recollect of one lady, who, on complying with her request, was asked what she intended to do with it. replied she had got into trouble and she was going to take it, or would take it. But it was thought she was not in earnest about it. She did take it, and died the next morning. clerks to appear before the coroner's inquest. Well, she They required the They testified she |