schools maintain day sessions, 9 have evening sessions, 4 have both, 3 do not report this item. 14 are separate institutions, 38 are departments of other institutions. 45 grant degrees. 2 of the 52 schools were established between 1801 and 1825, 4 between 1826 and 1850, 8 between 1851 and 1875, 38 between 1876 and 1900.

Apprenticeship-The University of Michigan is said to have been the first institution in this country to graduate pharmacists without any practical experience. In 1898, 24 schools of pharmacy reported that they did not require any practical training. The original object of the early schools of pharmacy was to give a theoretic knowledge of pharmacy as a science and a higher degree of familiarity with botany and chemistry than could be attained in the limited term of apprenticeship. It was not intended that these schools should take the place of an apprenticeship in a pharmacy.

In recent years there has been no little discussion as to whether schools of pharmacy should require work with a druggist as a condition for graduation. The schools that do not exact this requirement admit its necessity to success as a pharmacist, but they claim that it is impracticable to determine whether or not the necessary practical training has been acquired by their matriculates, and that by providing under proper instructors suitable laboratory facilities for actual work with the drugs, they can give more practical experience than that afforded in many pharmacies where the prescription department is of little importance. There is force in this position in the case of schools that give thorough courses requiring the full time of students, specially if matriculation requirements insure a fair general preliminary education. Dr Gregory, dean of the Buffalo college of pharmacy writes as follows touching this matter: "Prior to 1880 the diploma of a school of pharmacy was generally the sole evidence of fitness as a pharmacist. Now the license is demanded. No one denies the value of experience in a pharmacy, but the responsibility of testing its character

now rests with boards of examiners, leaving the schools free to attend to the primary function of teaching."

Present tendencies- Dr A. B. Huested of the New York pharmacy board writes as follows touching present tendencies in the teaching of pharmacy:

"These tendencies are all in the line of advancement, in teaching more thoroughly the fundamental subjects of chemistry, pharmacy, materia medica and botany, and including the allied subjects, microscopy, analytic examination of medicines, foods, secretions and excretions of the human system and bacteriology. In the past, the instruction in all schools of pharmacy was confined to evening hours, all the students, and they were few, working during the day in the near by retail and wholesale pharmacies. The establishment of chemical laboratories, where the student practically demonstrated what was taught in the class-room, was the first advance. Next came the pharmaceutic laboratory, devoted to the practical demonstration of the preparation of organic compounds; then the pharmacognosy room, and the microscopic laboratory, and today analytic and bacteriologic laboratories are being established. These extended courses of instruction demand that more time shall be devoted to the work, so that in place of all instruction being confined to evening hours, most schools now use a part of the day, and some occupy the entire time of the student, in courses extending over nine months in the year. Very many schools afford opportunity for farther work in optional and graduate

courses.

Notwithstanding the increase in work and time demanded of the student of pharmacy, the number pursuing this study is greater than during any previous period. It will be

"It should be remembered that the schools which led in the abandonment of the apprenticeship requirement did not take this course through any lack of appreciation of the value of actual experience, but because the requirement as frequently enforced was a farce. Very properly the university schools took the ground that their degrees should stand for school work only, and that no institution could honestly vouch for the value of something for which there could be no effective standard and which in many cases was of absolutely no value.” J. H. Beal

1

inferred from what has been stated, that those who are now engaged in retail pharmacies are more competent than their predecessors, and have a more thorough knowledge of the agents in which they deal. This is true if the This is true if the average education is considered, but nevertheless commercial tendencies have exercised a disadvantageous influence. The conditions of trade in the past were such as to allow those pharmacists who were so inclined, to devote their entire time to the study, care and preparation of medicines. Today the greater part of the time of the pharmacist must be devoted to the commercial side of his work, or he will soon find himself without patrons, and therefore without the means to carry on his business. Again, many if not a majority of the agents in which he deals, may and must be had from the large manufacturer. These conditions have attracted the more studious and therefore the better educated pharmacists to those pursuits that foster the educational side of pharmacy, leaving the retail pharmacies in charge of those in whom the commercial spirit predominates. When the educational attainments of the retail pharmacist are considered, I question if he has made the advance that the teaching of the schools. would indicate."

Legislation - Apothecaries were organized into a privileged body in civilized parts of Europe in the middle ages, and from that period those who dispense drugs have been required to possess certain qualifications. In the United States there have not been till lately any legal restrictions worthy of the name, but any ignorant boy whom an apothecary chose to employ has been free to dispense drugs.

Georgia seems to have been the first state that attempted to restrict the practice of pharmacy throughout the state to competent persons. The law, enacted in 1825, gave the state medical board power to examine and license apothecaries. The Alabama code of 1852 contained a similar provision. In 1868 a member of the Georgia board reported that he knew of only five licentiates of the board that were then engaged in business in the state. An act was passed

in New York in 1839 that applied solely to New York city, in Pennsylvania in 1866 that applied solely to Lycoming county. These early acts had little effect in protecting the public from ignorant apothecaries.

In 1869 a draft of a pharmacy law was recommended by the American pharmaceutical association which required. graduation in pharmacy as a condition for license. It was hoped in this way to secure through the schools of pharmacy men better fitted by preliminary education and professional training for the practice of the profession. Rhode Island was the only state which enacted this law (March 1870), and it was amended in the following year. At present there is no pharmacy law in the United States which requires attendance and graduation at a school of pharmacy as a condition for license.

Since 1869 laws restricting the practice of pharmacy have been enacted in almost every state through the efforts of members of the profession. The American pharmaceutical association, organized in 1852, has been a potent factor in the attempt to give pharmacy a professional standing equal to that of other branches of medicine. Its work in this direction has been of special value since the creation in 1887 of the sections of education and legislation. A mass of material on pharmaceutic education and legislation in this country and abroad has been collected and made available through the annual reports of the association.

The 1898 report of the section on education and legislation of the American pharmaceutical association summarizes as follows the fundamental defects in present laws regulating the practice of pharmacy in the United States:

I Failure to require a sufficient preliminary general education.

2 Failure to demand graduation from a school of pharmacy for admission to the licensing examination or for registration.

3 The privileges accorded to physicians, manufacturers, wholesalers, etc.

4 Failure to provide periods of apprenticeship and courses of study that would make it impracticable for any one to engage in the practice of pharmacy on his own account before the age of 24 or 25 years.

Dr J. H. Beal of the Department of pharmacy at Scio college, Ohio, was appointed by the section on education and legislation of the American pharmaceutical association at its 1899 meeting to draft a model pharmacy law. If approved this law can be introduced simultaneously into the legislatures of all the states. Dr Beal writes November 16, 1899: "Foreigners are often puzzled to account for the diversity in our legislation. The fact should be emphasized that all matters of internal police control are left exclusively to the several states, so that national laws regulating professional practice can not be enacted."

That a preliminary general education equivalent to graduation from an accredited high school will be required eventually for admission to the study of pharmacy is highly probable, but this demand will not be made for some time to come except by a few progressive states. Present tendencies indicate that graduation from an accredited school of pharmacy will also be required eventually for admission to the licensing test or for registration. The American pharmaceutical association and a number of state associations have within the last year favored this requirement.

Synopsis of present requirements — In 17 states a diploma in pharmacy does not now admit to practise, an examination being required in all cases:

licensing examination :

Georgia, three years' experience or diploma