PRICES CURRENT.

Prices are based upon quotations for original packages at port of entry or place of manufacture, plus a reasonable advance for breaking bulk and freight to interior points.

Prices quoted are for quantities usually bought by retail druggists. For larger quantities, prices are somewhat lower.

Containers are extra unless otherwise specified.

* Advanced during the past month.

† Declined during the past month.

INDEX TO PRICES CURRENT.

Only leading classes of articles are listed in the Index.

For those not mentioned here, see general list under name of article required.
Drugs and Chemicals, pages 1 to 16 inclusive.
Proprietary Articles, pages 17 to 59 inclusive.

When writing advertisers, please mention the "Midland Druggist and Pharmaceutical Review."

Including Pharmaceutical Review, 26 volumes: Pharmaceutical Archives, 6 volumes;
The Midland Druggist, 10 volumes.

No. 4.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES.

United States, $1.00; Canada, $1.35 per annum.

Foreign countries in Postal Union, $1.50 per annum. Remittances with subscription.

Published on the 1st of each month by The Midland Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio,
Entered at the Postoffice at Columbus, Ohio, as second class matter.

EDITORIAL NOTICE.

The opinions and policies of this publication are given expression in its editorial columns. Our remaining columns are open to contributions upon any topic of pharmaceutical interest, it being understood that the views there expressed are those of the contributors, and do not necessarily imply editorial endorsement.

IT

IRRESPONSIBLE LEGISLATORS.

T may be remarked that we have been paying a great deal of attention to agricultural literature of late, but why should we not, when it is the fact that we druggists of Ohio are doing business under the supervision and control of an Agricultural Commission.

In the course of our agricultural research we have come across an editorial in the Ohio Farmer of December 13, 1913. It is a little old, but it contains an expression of view which we are glad to note gaining ground rapidly among our farmer associates. The editorial is as follows:

Every man who is sent to the state legislature or to Congress feels that he must introduce at least one bill and fight its way until it is enacted into law. It may be a manifestation of a laudable desire to really do something in return for the honor that his constituents have conferred upon him, or it may be an effort to keep his name in front of the voters so that they will remember him at the next election. But, anyway, every representative desires to father at least one bill. We will soon have another session of the Ohio Legislature and the regular session of Congress is now in session. It is to be hoped that every man who introduces a measure will really understand it and expect to accept some responsibility for the outcome. In a great many instances a measure is drawn up by some one who is not a member of the assembly and introduced by a member, when the latter does not have a good idea of what the bill is intended to accomplish. Many men have made their political fortunes on measures that were all prepared for them by some private citizen. Others have made the mistakes of their lives by fathering measures with which they did not familiarize themselves in advance and which acted as boomerangs. Just last week, for instance, we

learned that the stated author of a law passed by the last legislature did not know what the measure actually was. Neither did the department that has charge of the enforcement of the law, until recently explained. This measure, by the way, is one of those "control laws" which, in our judgment goes farther than the state is warranted in going. It provides that all manufacturers of remedies for live stock must print on their label the formula of the remedy. We have always held that manufacturers should be required to state injurious ingredients, but when any one has spent time and money in working up a good remedy we do not think it right to compel him to give it away to the public.

We take a little exception to the title of this editorial, which is "Responsible Legislators". We think more properly it should be "Irresponsible Legislators."

The points made in the editorial quoted are well taken. It is certainly true that every member of the state legislature or of Congress feels that he must do something to prove to his constituents that he is earning the salary which he draws, and being often deficient in originality, he is ready to grasp at any proposition coming to him from any source which may be made to appear reasonable and have a chance of attracting attention. We believe it is really true that most of the measures presented to legislative bodies do not originate with the members whose names they bear and we further believe it to be true that in very many instances the members who are induced to father these measures have no adequate understanding of their scope or meaning. The editorial mentioned above instances a measure illustrating this condition and, without doubt, it refers to the so-called "Stock Food and Conditioner" Law passed by the Ohio Legislature during the session of 1913. It points out that these measures go further than the State is warranted in going, and further makes the point that the requirement for labelling under which proprietors of remedies must give out in great degree their formulas, is unfair. This question is an old one. Whether the State is warranted in demanding the publication of private matter, is a subject we do not wish to discuss at this time, but will take up in a later issue.

What we wish to call attention to and emphasize is the statement that the socalled author of the law did not know what the measure actually was, and further that the department charged with its enforcement did not know until recently explained. We are quite well assured of the truth of this statement.

This law is very far-reaching and does things which we cannot believe the Legislature ever contemplated doing, and that the Department charged with its enforcement even at the present time does not understand its far-reaching effect.

Another law passed at the same session, known as the Insecticide and Fungicide Law, is even more open to criticism than the one just mentioned, and concerning which a greater measure of ignorance and misunderstanding exists in the Department.

The question may be asked, "Why are such measures allowed to become laws?" The answer in these two cases, at least, is, simply because there was no opportunity given for the legislators to be made acquainted with the provisions of these two laws.

Recently in legislative bodies a great howl has been made against the lobbyist and he has been generally condemned and in some instances excluded from legislative committees and general contact with the members. The real truth is that the lobbyist has his place and is a useful factor in legislative deliberations. It is not to be presumed that the average member of a legislative body possesses the accurate and often technical knowledge necessary to enable him to make up his mind intelligently upon the measures presented. If he cannot have the views and explanations of those who are interested in and affected by the proposed law, his vote must be largely a blind vote, and the attempt to exclude the lobbyist smacks too much of autocracy to ever find the approval of the thinking public.

IT

LEGAL CONTROVERSIES OF GENERAL INTEREST.

T will be interesting to our readers, wherever located, to know that suits have been filed in the courts of Franklin County, Ohio, to test the constitutionality of two laws known as the "Insecticide and Fungicide Law" and the "Stock Food and Conditioner Law," under which exacting restrictions and heavy fees are laid upon dealers and manufacturers for the sale of their products.

Either of these laws, if carried out to the full, would prove so burdensome as to be beyond the powers of druggists and many other dealers to meet, and hence would deprive them of some part of their business.

These suits will set a precedent for the country and are therefore interesting everywhere and not only in Ohio. It goes without saying that if heavy taxations and restrictions of this sort may be made to stand in the State of Ohio, such legislation will quickly be followed by like provisions in other states.

The average politician is so keen after means for creating new jobs and levying new taxes that surely such an opportunity will not be overlooked in other states.

We hope in the next issue to be able to advise our readers of the results of the preliminary action of the court. We are assured that should this action be adverse, these cases will be immediately carried to a higher tribunal and efforts will not cease until they have reached the court of last resort.

WHAT IS PURE GROUND FLAXSEED MEAL?

E print below a letter received by one of our constituents sent by the Agricul

correspondence columns of our last issue.

C. B. Ransberger, East Palestine, Ohio:

March 23, 1914.

DEAR SIR: Yours March 19th to the State Food Commissioner referred here for attention. The Ohio Feed Stuffs Law does not call for registration fee for the sale of PURE GROUND FLAX SEED MEAL. Only in case of adulteration and when sold for feeding purposes would it be classed as a feed stuff and subject to license. However, this statement published in the MIDLAND DRUGGIST is misleading, and is false as many others sent out from the same source.

Respectfully,

S. K. JOHNSON, Inspector.

We are much pleased at the charge made against the MIDLAND DRUGGIST as being misleading and false in its statements. Nevertheless, we are ready to back up all that we have said. Here is the wording of the law:

Section 1132: "Feed stuffs" in general shall be held to include all feeds used for live stock and poultry, and the following and similar articles of commerce; linseed meal, linseed oil cake, cotton seed meal, etc., etc.,

naming a number of items not necessary to mention here.

Now, the law does not say that linseed meal must necessarily be sold as a feed stuff, but it does say that feed stuffs include linseed meal and similar articles of commerce, and from inference it is a feed no matter how sold.

The United States Pharmacopoeia says that linseed meal is the crushed linseed without admixture more than an accidental amount and the percentage of allowance which is stated.