St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-12-08
WILL INTEREST DRUGGISTS.
An Interpretation of the Much-De
bated Pharmacy Law.

AN Interpretation Oh the MuCnsDe-
bated Pharmacy Law.
What was known last winter as ''the
pharmacy bill," which provoked unusual
discussion, brought large lobby of drug
gists to st. Paul, and was fought by sew
eral members as holly as any of the new
state laws, was the subject of an interest
ing opinion by the attorney general yester-
day. In reply to a communication from
Wilmont S. Getty, member of the state
board of pharmacy. as to the right of the
board to refuse certificates of registration
to graduates of pharmacy or graduates OF
medicine, as defined in the law regulating
the practice of medicine in the state, and
as to the privilege of the board to disap-
prove all colleges Of pharmacy and medi-
cine and refuse certificates of registration
to graduates of such colleges. the attorney
general says:
1 think both of your questions, in the
broad sense indicated by them, must be
answered in the negative. Of course If a
man is simply graduate in pharmacy With
out the four years practical experience re-
quired by section 8, he is not to be deemed a
graduate within the intent of the act. But
if the board is satisfied that an applicant
for registration as a graduate of pharmacy
drug stores where prescriptions of medical
practitioners are compounded and has OBJ
tanned a diploma from such college or school
of pharmacy, as shall be approved by
the board of pharmacy as suffi-
Gent guarantee of their attain
the duty of the board to register such appli-
cant and issue to him a certificate thereof.
The act
SEEMS TO PREsUPPOsE
that there are, or at least may be. colleges
whose diplomas, coupled with the four years
practical experience, should entitle the holder
to registration, and the duty of examining
into and passing upon the character of col
leges devoted to this subject is cast by the
law upon the board.
This necessitates the exercise of judgment
and discrimination on the part of the board
relative to any and all colleges whose diplo-
mas are presented to them for approval or
disapproval, and this duty cannot be shirked
by sweeping resolution in the first instance
that no diploma from any college will be
received or considered by it, unless it be true
in the deliberate judgment of the board that
there are no colleges now in existence whose
diploma and the four years referred to is
sufficient guarantee, etc. 1t is clearly the
duty of the board, either in the first instance,
by resolution to designate the colleges if
there are any such) whose diplomas will be
approved, and the colleges, if any, where
diplomas will not be so approved, or else
leave the question open until a case arises
calling upon it to exercise its judgment re-
lating thereto
The foregoing applies only to graduates in
pharmacy. AS far as graduates in medicine
are concerned there does not seem to be any
discretion vested in the board as to the char
acter of the medical college from which the
physician has graduated, but perhaps (no
opinion on this point it might be construed
as embracing only such physicians as are
authorized to practice their profession in
this state