Conveyance of arsenic and arsenical compounds.—In the course of their inquiry the committee had their attention drawn to the manner in which arsenic in tended for industrial purposes is conveyed. A manufitcturing chemist, making sheep-dips and weed-killers, stated that he received arsenic by rail or by ship, and he added : " We often receive the casks of arsenic with the contents running out on to tile cart." He stated that a small lot, say a four-ton lot, would come by train, and that arsenic not only might be, but was, distributed about the goods station. Although the railway companies have regulations as to the handling of dangerous things, they are not acted upon, and he cited a case as evidence of the fact. Asked if the barrels coming to him were marked "Poison," he answered : "Some of them, not all ; sometimes they are marked 'Arsenic' with a small stencil ; in other cases they have the word Poison.' " But lie added, " It is the exception they are so marked ; in fact, the only time that I recollect their being marked Poison' is when we have bought foreign arsenic." He also stated that foreign arsenic was packed in casks enclosed in a second cask, which in his opinion tended to make the carriage "absolutely safe," but that such is never done in the case of English goods. The witness then instanced cases where unfortunate results had followed from the careless way in which arsenic is handled in the wholesale trade. There was, he stated, a very general evasion by traders of the 17th Section of the Pharmacy Act. Arsenical residue from oil of vitriol works—sulphide of arsenic for example—was sent away to be treated, and any packages were thought good enough to hold it. The committee were accordingly of opinion that the conveyance of arsenic and substances containing large quantities of arsenic under such lax observance of precaution is a source of danger to the public.
Recommendations.—The committee thereupon recommended that preparations for use in connection with agriculture, horticulture, or sanitation might be placed in a third part of the schedule, to be sold only by licensed persons, not necessarily chemists, but subject to regulations to be made by the Privy Council. And, further, that the traffic in arsenic should be regulated either by an amendment of the Arsenic Act, 1851, or by more stringent enforcement of the provisions of the 17th Section of the Pharmacy Act, 1868.
Minority report.—But to the above report of the committee there was added the dissenting report of a minority. From a comprehensive survey of the testi mony submitted by the twenty-six witnesses examined, the chief impression conveyed to the minority was that a strong agitation against the salutary principle underlying the Pharmacy Act—namely, the competent technical training of the vendor—had been organised on behalf of manufacturers, proprietors, and agents of specifics containing poison ; and that the demand for relaxation of the statutory restrictions emanated not from agriculturists or from horticulturists, but from those persons whose natural desire it is to promote the sale of their own par ticular preparations. Only two witnesses who might properly be described as users of poisonous compounds furnished evidence, but neither of them stated that he had any practical difficulty in procuring what was necessary for his own requirements, though one of them desired to have the liberty of selling poisonous compounds without formality of any kind. The point was strikingly exemplified
by the remark of a witness, who stated as a reason for objecting to the Pharmacy Act that he could not readily introduce poisonous novelties through chemists and druggists. That objection is distinctly a manufacturer's objection, and was the predominant note throughout the inquiry. But some regard must be had to the public side of the question, and it is an important advantage that chemists and druggists do act as a restraint upon the development of the retail business in poisonous novelties, and do to that extent carry out the object which the Legis lature had in view in passing the Act. A more detailed examination of the body of evidence led the minority to form the following conclusions :—(a) That the administration of the Pharmacy Act by the Society did not interfere, and had not interfered with, the legitimate use of poisons for technical or manufacturing purposes, and did not prejudice or harass either agriculture or horticulture ; (1) that no real ground was shown for the relaxation of the restrictions imposed on behalf of the public by the Pharmacy Act, and that no departure from the sound principle of that Act is warranted ; (c) that urgent necessity existed for the efficient registration and supervision of every open shop in which poison was sold by retail ; (d) that it was expedient that the " putting up," packing, storing, and conveyance of poisons and poisonous compounds should be subject to regulation. The evi dence was not convincing to the minority that under the then conditions any serious practical inconvenience had been experienced by the bond fide user in obtaining supplies of poisonous compounds for the need of agriculture and horti culture It Riled to find that it supported the view that there was any hardship imposed by the Act. Nor did it find any justification for assuming that the general tendency of the operation of the Act was to enhance the price of agricultural preparations. Carbolic acid was no dearer, and its sale was no less, as the result of being supplied through qualified channels. Furthermore, it was difficult to imagine what real advantage could accrue to agriculture, or to agricultural users, if un qualified vendors were permitted to reap whatever pecuniary benefit there might have been in the sale of poisons, rather than the persons then existing and speci ally created by statute for that purpose. At any rate there was no reason, on behalf of the public, to acquiesce in a special readjustment and relaxation of the law for the mere object of transferring alleged profits from the pockets of one licensed class to another licensed class. Relaxation of the Act in the manner suggested was a departure from the principle that safety to the public lies in the training of the vendor. Only the most exceptional cases, based upon public necessity, could justify sue!, a backward step, and the evidence did not reveal the existence of rational cause or urgent circumstance for even partial abandon ment of such a well-proven statutory principle. A third part to the schedule to the Pharmacy Act, as suggested in the report of the committee, was therefore unnecessary, would be impolitic, and would be unworkable in practice.