The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-06-21
FRIDAYS PROCEEDINGS.

The convention met at 10 O'Clock, and
was called to order by President Graham.
After reading one or two kilograms
sending greetings to the association a
resolution was adopted increasing the
salary of the secretary from $25 to $75,
and fixing the pay of treasurer at $50 a
year.
A committee on revision of the phsr-
macopeia was appointed, consisting of
Mr.. Carleton, of Brennan, Mr.. james
Kennedy, of San Antonio, and Mr.. Ken
dali, of Weatherford.
A committee on pharmacy law was ap-
pointed, consisting of E. NJ. Wells, of
Fort Worth, 81. L. Carleton, Brennan, S.
X. Morley, Austin. This committee is to
have the assistance of all Austin drug
gists, as we'll as those throughout the
state.
committee on notes and queries, con-
sisting of James Kennedy, San Antonio,
Kasper Horner, San Antonio, and Mr..
Nicholson, Rockwall, was appointed. This
committees numerous important queries,
which require scientific Investigation, to
be reported upon at next meeting.
A committee on exhibits was appointed,
consisting of James Kennedy, II. L..
Carleton, S. X. Morley. The report of
the committee was highly complimentary
to the exhibits in general and to those of
Seabury g. Johnson and Z. j. Hart & Co.
in particular, as we'll as to their genial and
urbane representatives,, DIR. j. E. English
and K. D. Bowen.
The date of the next meeting was set
for the second Tuesday in May, 1889, after
which a vote of thanks was rendered the
press, pharmacists and citizens of Austin.
The association then adjourned and
were driven to various places of interest
about town.
The treasurer's report was read and
adopted, and, after some minor business,
the association adjourned sine die.
LOCO" WEED.
The following is part of the report of
Mr.. James Kennedy, of San Antonio on
the ''loco" weed, He made careful
analysis of the weed, which his paper sets
out in full, and which explodes the idea
that the plant is poisonous. OF the weed
he says:
PHYSIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES.
Notwithstanding its notoriety, the his :
tory of our plant has remained very OBJ
scure indeed, and inquiries addressed to
persons pretending to be familiar with
the plant and its effects on animals
elected replies at great variance with each
other, making the information obtained
of doubtful value, as subsequent investi-
CATION substantially proved.
Some assert that the plant is eaten by
horses and cattle, but not by mules 1;
others declare that it il eaten by cattle
only, and that horses will not touch il;
while others again state that NJ is enten by
horses, cattle and mules.
With reference to its toxic qualities.
some say the fruit nlono is poisonous;
Others that the poisonous effect ia due TO
an insect infcsting tho flowers; still others,
who say that the leaves only are poisonous.
Thon there Ia majority agreeing
with neither Of the above, who pro-
nOunce NIL parts of the plant above
ground poisonous and NJ all stages of It's
growth.
It's effects on animals have been differ
emily described by different observers.
By one cn'a We have described the syrnp-
toms OF n functional disturbance of the
organH OF assimilation, resulting IN a
gradual wasting away OF the animal, end
ing In death at the expiration of several