That this resolution, as originally proposed, would not be accepted by the majority of the members of the Society present at the time of its introduction indicates that they have not permitted unreasoning prejudice to commit them to a policy detrimental to themselves and to their practice.

To convince us that proprietary remedies have no place in latter-day therapeutics would require stronger arguments than were used on the floor of the Memphis Medical Society on the occasion mentioned. Of course there are many who will sagely remark that self-interest prompts this statement. To this it is only necessary for us to say that were it not for a liberal advertising patronage of the large manufacturing chemists we could not supply our readers with a journal that costs more than thirteen cents a copy, and for which we receive in return but one dollar a year. To this extent are we prejudiced. But we would not willingly rest the case of the proprietary on this point alone, for there is an abundance of strong arguments to be used in the defense of this kind of product.

We do not believe that it can be gainsaid, when careful thought is given to the matter, that the era of medical specialties has been to pharmacy what the development of specialism has been to medicine. The enormous amount of capital thrown into this particular field of proprietary drugs, has given zest to investigation, has lent animus to progress. Without the safeguard lent by proprietorship we doubt very much if capital would be invested in the development of synthetic pharmaceutical preparations; without the security offered in the copyright we cannot believe that our therapeutic resources would have been so well developed as they now are.

There are very few proprietary medicines used by the medical profession the formula of which cannot be obtained; and that the originator should be permitted to retain inviolate the name by which his product is known and advertised to the medical fraternity, and that his process of combining the agents comprising his formula should remain his secret, certainly seems to us but fair and just. Are we to throttle the manufacturing chemist and take from him the product of his brain, his money and his energy?

VOL. XIX-37

To those members of the medical profession who would have us eliminate proprietaries from the list of medicinal agents in daily use we would say, How long has it been since you prescribed phenacetine, antipyrine, or McMunn's elixir of opium? What! Today? Then do you not realize that you are using proprietaries? Couldn't get along without them? Of course not, and we could enumerate dozens of other copyrighted chemicals and synthetic preparations in constant and satisfactory use of which the same might well be said.

EDITOR'S NOTES.

A Valuable Atlas of the World is being distributed to physicians by Messrs. Scott & Bowne, New York. If you haven't received a copy write for one.

Dr. N. H. Lindsey, Elmore, I. T., class '97-8, Memphis Hospital Medical College, and Miss Kathleen Giddens, of Sevell's Bend, Tenn., were married September 1, 1899.

Dr. P. E. Terry, of Blackton, Ark., class '98-9, Memphis Hospital Medical College, was married to Miss Willye Edna Bronte, daughter of Dr. and Mrs. W. E. Bronte, Blackton, Wednesday evening, November 15, 1899, at 8 o'clock.

Dr. J. P. Runyan, of Pine Bluff, Ark., has removed to Little Rock, Ark., in which large field for his talents the MONTHLY wishes him much success.

Dr. B. F. Ward, of Helena, Ark., formerly of the firm of Shinault & Ward, has changed his location to Little Rock, Ark. In his new sphere of action, Dr. Ward has our best wishes.

The West Tennessee Medical and Surgical Association will meet at Milan, Tenn., December 14 and 15, 1899. A large attendance is expected. Titles should be sent to the popular secretary, Dr. I. A. McSwain, Paris, Tenn.

A Final Decree has been handed down by Judge Kohlsaat, in the United States Circuit Court at Chicago, restraining Edward Otto, a Chicago druggist, from substituting other and inferior preparations for Fairchild's Essence of Pepsine, when this is specified.

Erratum. In Dr. Barbour's excellent article on the use of Tuberculin Preparations in the Treatment of Tuberculosis, November issue of the MONTHLY, the fifth line, page 484, reads, "I am convinced that it has," etc.; it should read, "I am not convinced that it has a direct bactericidal action," etc.

The Exhibits at the recent meeting of the Tri-State Medical Association, in Memphis, were so varied in nature and attractive that we hope to give them an extended notice in our next issue.

PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES.

MEMPHIS MEDICAL SOCIETY.

Stated meeting, November 7, 1899. The President, Dr. B. F. Turner, in the Chair.

This was a joint meeting of physicians and pharmacists, its object being to bring them together to discuss matters of common iterest.

A Plea for the More Careful Study of Materia Medica was the title of a paper read by Dr. E. A. Neely. He objects to routinism. There are three causes for this: The lack of study, normal indisposition to labor, imperfect teaching in medical schools, (the student should be brought into actual contact with the drugs). Deprecates the use of readymade prescriptions, the pharmaceutical product.

Dr. E. C. Ellett moved that discussion of papers be deferred until after all papers were read. Carried.

Mr. F. W. Ward read a paper on the same subject, contending that no pharmacist should diagnose and prescribe for any patient, but that he had the right to sell a simple cough mixture or simple drugs, such as commonly used as household remedies. $200,000,000 are yearly spent for patent drugs, the crowning evil of the drug business. True pharmacy should not deal in patent drugs. Deprecates the fact that poisons are so extensively sold to the laity without prescriptions, especially cocaine and morphine. Advises doctors to send their patients not where they can get the cheapest but the best drugs.

Mr. Treherne spoke on the Fraternal Relations of Physician and Pharmacist. Medicine and pharmacy are of common origin. To establish a better relation between the two professions, a wider education and a more circumspect application of it on the part of the pharmacist is essential. Pharmacists should not prescribe for patients or give any counsel on medical subjects. He asked the druggist who gave him the right to prescribe. The accusation of substitution has widened the breach

between the two professions. He plead for pharmacy on a higher plane. To dispense with side-lines and stick closely to their business.

Discussion.

Dr. Krauss objects to present method of prescribing readymade compounds, not allowing the pharmacist the proper percentage in the end. Pharmacist is entitled to certain sum for compounding. Objects to the grain system and commends the metric system for simplicity, etc.

Dr. Heber Jones: Mr. Treherne is too lenient on doctor. Agrees with Dr. Krauss that laziness is to be held accountable for the readymade prescribing.

Dr. F. D. Smythe attributes the deplorable condition of affairs to the habit physicians have of prescribing proprietary drugs. On this account drugstores are filled with such, and the druggist sells them without a prescription.

Dr. W. C. Griswold thought that physicians should not try to estimate the price of drugs. Pharmacy demands the highest standard of manhood.

Dr. Ellett asked that physicians send their patients to pharmacists who uphold the legitimate profession. Deprecates the existing fact that prescriptions are repeated.

Dr. Kennedy Jones said he would unhesitatingly send his patients to a legitimate druggist. Prescriptions should not be refilled.

Mr. Besthoff: Druggists must be protected. If physicians would write on their prescriptions "Do not repeat," that would be sufficient.

Dr. J. II. Reilly objected to medical journals publishing ads. for proprietary drugs.

Mr. Crego wanted to know the difference between the patent and proprietary medicines.

Dr. Ellett said that unless the medical journals published such ads. of proprietary houses they could not exist. He differentiated between proprietary and patent medicines.

Dr. M. Goltman said that he would also send his patients to a legitimate drugstore.

Dr. Wm. Krauss: Prescriptions should never, under any circumstances, be refilled.

Dr. G. G. Buford: The prescription belongs to the patient and the doctors can't keep the prescription from being filled. Dr. E. A. Neely: The prescription is the private property of the patient. Wished to introduce a resolution that physicians should never again prescribe proprietary medicines.

Mr. Ward defends the side-line under separate management as remunerative and uncontaminating.

Mr. Treherne closed the discussion. The drug business cannot be primarily one as a money maker. The druggist should be remunerated for his time and knowledge. There can be no middle ground in the matter of side-lines. A man must be a druggist or not.

Dr. W. W. Taylor moved that a vote of thanks be tendered Messrs. Treherne and Ward for their papers and attendance and interest.

Passed.

Dr. Ellett reported on the street numbering committee. Dr. Smythe moved that the Letter Carriers' Association's movement in regard to street numbering be approved.

Dr. Krauss said that he was opposed to this approval. Dr. Heber Jones thought this resolution of approval would do good.

Dr. Buford asked for original motion.

Dr. Smythe's original motion was seconded and passed.
Dr. Neely introduced the following:

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the Memphis Medical Society that the habit of prescribing proprietary medicines should be abandoned by the physicians of Memphis, and that each member of the Society present pledges himself to quit the use of such remedies."

Dr. Crofford said that he would not like to give up his liberty of prescribing such remedies.

Dr. Raymond said he would not like to be deprived of the use of several excellent proprietary drugs.

Dr. Heber Jones suggested an amendment to the motion in that it should not pledge the members, but acknowledge that such practice is reprehensible. Passed.

Adjourned.