Dr. Stewart then opened the debate on the subject, arguing that drugs, of whatever virtue or variety, so that they are good of their kind, should be admitted. In reference to Barks he could say, that perhaps a larger amount of the varieties of that drug came to the port of Baltimore than any other. That the merchants in that trade were so desirous of getting the best kinds, that it was quite usual for them to import specimens by way of the Isthmus, and have them examined before ordering their invoices, to ascertain whether they would pass the Custom-house, that he had, (as Examiner at that port,) chemically examined a large number of samples of the barks, both Peruvian and Carthagena, and that the latter had invariably contained more or less of alkaloids, and were generally of good quality, of their kind.
He therefore considered the fact that a drug is, or may be used as an adulteration for other drugs, should not exclude it if it is used to any extent on its own merits. In illustration, Dr. Stewart remarked that the Examiner might go on a vessel and observe, side by side, two casks of oil, consigned to the same individual, one invoiced “cod liver oil,” and the other “sperm oil.” On examination he finds that they are what they purport to be; the suspicion would arise very naturally, that the latter was to be used for adulterating the former, yet, should sperm oil be excluded, because certain parties use it for an adulteration? He thought not, and on the same grounds he considered that the inferior barks and rhubarb should be admitted, although some persons may use them for adulteration.
At the request of the President, Professor Carson, of the University of Pennsylvania, addressed the Convention on the subject before it. He coincided generally with the views of Dr. Stewart, as regarded the value of the drugs in question. He expressed the opinion that numerous varieties of the so-called Carthagena and Maracaibo barks, were possessed of decided medicinal virtue; that several kinds of European rhubarb {341} were of much value in medicine, especially in times when the officinal varieties are scarce, and that these drugs should all be admitted, when not deteriorated or adulterated.
Mr. Haskell, of New York, advocated the same views, more especially, as related to English rhubarb, bringing forward the testimony of Dr. Pereira, to the effect, that some specimens of Banbury rhubarb were almost, if not fully equal to the Chinese drug, and they were here even of rather higher price. He also stated, that a large demand existed in this country for the yellow Carthagena barks, that the House, of which he Was a member, sold large quantities in powder, and that the parties purchasing it did so, knowing its origin. He was not aware of the use to which it was put, but presumed that it was employed legitimately.
Mr. Fisk, of Connecticut, stated, that through the part of New England that he represented, considerable quantities of the barks in question were used legitimately, as tonics; and that no instance of their being used as an adulteration of the Peruvian barks had come to his knowledge.
Mr. Coggeshall on the other side of the question, called the attention of the Convention to the item in Dr. Bailey’s Report, showing that three hundred thousand pounds of these barks had been rejected at the port of New York, in about two years and a half. He argued that this bark was not consumed there; that it was not used in the manufacture of the alkaloids; that the allegation that it was used for making tooth powders would hardly account for the great consumption of it, and the question naturally arose for what purpose was it imported? He believed that it was used extensively to grind with the Peruvian barks, as an adulteration, and to make an inferior extract, which could be done cheaply and profitably, and it was largely sold as an officinal preparation, that many of the persons who came to our cities to buy drugs, were not able to judge of their purity, and bought them without asking any questions, save, as regarded price,—and so convinced was he of the application of these false barks to these false purposes, {342} that as a protective measure, in his opinion, they should be excluded. And also, in regard to English and other European rhubarb, that the argument of Professor Carson would not hold good while the markets were so well supplied with the Russian and Chinese varieties, to which the Banbury, regarded as the best of the European, was so very inferior. It might be used as a dernier resort, but should only be so used. Entirely independent of this argument, however, Mr. Coggeshall considered that European rhubarb should be excluded, because of its peculiar adaptation and general use as an adulteration, owing to its fine color, which enables the adulterator to improve the appearance of the inferior Chinese variety, to mix it with the Russian article in powder, without depreciating its appearance; or, as it is notoriously done, to a great extent, substitute it entirely for the true article.
Mr. Colcord, of Boston, advocated the latter view, and hoped that the Resolution would not pass.
Other members of the Convention joined in the debate, after which, the question was taken on the Resolution of Dr. Stewart, and it was lost.
As the importance of the subject introduced by Dr. Stewart, was fully appreciated by the Convention, at the same time that no direct course of action seemed proper for it to pursue, the following Resolution was offered by Mr. Smith, of Cincinnati, viz.:
“Resolved, that the whole subject of the Inspection of Drugs shall be referred to a Committee, who shall be instructed to confer with the Examiners, and endeavor to arrive at some practicable means of fixing standards for imported drugs.”