The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-07-10

FREE QUININE AND IT'S EIrFECTs.-Tt Is
limited now, upon reasonably good authority,
that the bill putting qunine upon the free
list, which has just become law, IL not as
perfect as It might be. In fact, II Is whispered
that the bill Id Its present shape will play
most etfectually into the hands Of the monop-
olists; and when we consider the power and
influence of the qunine professors and reflect
upon the low market price Of Republican vir-
tue, the latk Of any combined or formal oppo-
sition To the bill is u most suspicious fact. The
secret OF this absence Ut opposition seems to
be that while the bill removes the duty Of 20
per cent upon the salts and sulE hate of qui-
nine--that is TO say upon auinia there Is still
a duty of 40 per cent uuon quinidia, cinchon-
da and other less valuable and more READILY
extracted aikaloids. 1t Is now the purpose
OF the monopollsts, 1t IS claimed, to cease the
manufacture OF salts and suiphate OF quinine
altogether, and devote their resources to the
alkalotds upon which there Is still a duty of
40 per cent. Quifine, upon the salts Of which
the duty Is 20 cents an ounce, Is only one OF
four or five aIkaloids obtained from Peruvian
bark. All these alkaloids have similar prop
critics. Three of them--quinia, quinida and
neutrality-suspicious. III needles, can not
be distinguished from each other, even with q
strong Coddington lens, but are sold at very
different prices by manufacturers, the first
ruling at S3 40 an ounce, the second at 81 Is
and the last ut 81 % or the remaining aIka-
loids cinchonia has Il different chrystal from
quinia, and chlnoldlne IL not crystalizable.
cents an ounce. Neither OF these can be mis-
taken for quinine; but the manufacturers
claim and perhaps with justice, that q great
part OF the supposed quinine dispensed by
retail druggists Is not quinine at all, but
either qunldia or cinchonidia, generally the
latter, which is regarded as having finer anti
periodic properties than qninine itself. A
curious fact In this connection, and one that
Is likely to lead to some controversy, Is the
attack made upon retail druggists by some of
the quinine professors. One Of the firm OF
Powers &iW eightman,a as reason for asserting
that the removal OF the 20 per cent duty will
not In the least affect the cost OF quinine to
the consumer, says that the price held by re-
Tall druggists for the article Is cents per
grain, or 81 40 per ounce, making no allow
ance for waste and deficient weight In reality,
the retail dealer gets about Sl3 per ounce, at
5 cents grain, OF which So 80 is profit when
ne sells suinia, and Sill 35 when he palms off
elncnonldia for the more expensive article.
mat the retail price will be altered materi-
ally by reduction to from 50 IS to 50 25 per
ounce Is not believed by manufacturers, and
they discreLt the idea that the consumer will
gain anything from piece OF legislation that
proves highly injurious to the manufacturer.
Ihey say the retail druggist needs no such
legislation, since he sells every ounce of uui-
nine he dispenses for four times what it costs
him. In effect, this is giving the retail dealers
credit for the most hagrant and outrageous
extortion and II it be- true the enormity is
even greater than the Infamous blood-tax
which has just been removed, but, for the pres
ent, we leave the retail druggists to repeI the
charge in their own way, or to confirm it by
their silence.
There seems to be no sort of doubt that the
manufacturers will employ ell their resources
to render the bill that has just passed inoper-
atlYe and Intellectual, and IN This they may