two years. There is as much sold as ever.

The law was made

for a purpose, and a man should not be favored who violates the law. We are not going to make trouble unless violations are called to our attention and forced upon us.

MR. GARVIN: I would like to ask Mr. Fleischner if the Commissioners of Pharmacy would revoke a man's license for every violation of the liquor law; that is, would the Commissioners revoke that man's license?

MR. FLEISCHNER: I cannot answer for my colleagues. For myself, I will give you my opinion privately.

MR. GARVIN: This is a strange case. I don't know that it has any parallel. I had a case. The state law at the present time very clearly states, under Sec. 2619 or 2169, something like this: "Whenever a town shall have voted against granting license, a pharmacist regularly licensed may, upon presentation of certificate, be granted license to sell spirituous and intoxicating liquors by the County Commissioners." May, upon presentation of his certificate. I don't care about fifty cents or one dollar, but I could not take advantage of that statute, and I fought with the County Commissioners five months two different years. The County Commissioners say that clause cuts no figure; that you shall have signers, and they shall be endorsed by the Town Clerk in your town; and if you do not have signers, and they are not endorsed by the Town Clerk, and your application is not posted, the same as for a common gin-mill, you are violating the liquor law. I say they are wrong. I think it is up to the Legislative Committee to give the little fellows a fair show, and compel the County Commissioners to do as the statutes say they shall do. Give the man in no-license town a license to sell liquor upon the prescription of a practicing physician, without signers, or public advertising, or public sign-post. I fought them two years ago, and according to the County Commissioners I can be prosecuted for it. They say every person shall make application in the regular form. I believe they ought to give me a license without any signers, and they won't do it. Would you and my old colleague, Mr. Leverty, and Mr. Dickinson, of the old Board, would you be justified in revoking my license?

MR. FLEISCHNER: I would not vote to revoke your license. We have every day technical violations of the law. You may be sure no present member of the Board of Pharmacy would give a complaint of that kind any consideration. We only refer to flagrant violators of the law. The men arrested are only in the business to violate day after day, and those are the men who ought to be eliminated from the drug business and put on a footing where they belong. If it is a license-town they should take out a $450 license. They are getting about so, on the same footing, they are ultimately likely to make us pay $450, on account of those violations of the law. We will be the victims. I dare say there are a number of druggists in our state who will not become members of your Association because they do not want to be charged with anything wrong, and do not want you to help them. One of the objects of the organization is to help our fellow members.

MR. LEVERTY: I would like to say, for the benefit of the gentlemen from Fairfield County here, we have been up against the County Commissioners here time and time again, trying to get them to cut out that "advertisement," and our Legislative Committee cannot do anything unless the law is changed, because their interpretation of it is that any license which is issued must be advertised. Fairfield County is the only county where they compel druggists to advertise the license. That is their interpretation of the law. We had a lawyer go to see them, but it was no use.

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to say to Mr. Garvin, speaking of that clause which says the County Commissioners "may" license, and not “shall," the County Commissioners are a law unto themselves. They have power to refuse every one of us a license. Up to eight years ago they could not refuse. If a licensed druggist appeared with his certificate as pharmacist they were obliged to give him a license. But that was taken away. They now have a right to refuse every one of us any license in no-license towns.

MR. GARVIN: It states that upon the presentation of the certificate it may be granted to him. I will take it to court, if I am

going to lose my pharmacist's license. That must be eliminated or I will make a test case of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: The matter of taking away the license does not refer to ordinary technical violations of law; it refers to the sale of liquor to me drunk on the premises. But when the prosecution comes up, that section refers to that "not to be drunk on the premises," he shall forfeit his license. But the prosecution is not for that; when the writ is made out, it is for violation of the liquor law.

MR. FLEISCHNER: The law as interpreted by the Attorney General gives the Pharmacy Commissioners the right to revoke license for abuse, neglect or incompetency. And I want to call your attention to another thing to the matter of revoking licenses of young men who are licensed pharmacists who tip the elbow a good deal. Under the law we can revoke those licenses, or suspend them; and I would not be surprised some day if we revoked a few licenses of those fellows who do not behave themselves. There is no better deterrent than to take a man's license away for about six months or a year, and let him work on the street for $1 a day. Some day it is going to happen. If any of you happen to have one of the boys in the store who is inclined to be too jolly, tell him to behave himself or he will lose his license.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am only speaking in regard to the sale of liquor specifically to be drunk on the premises. There is a section read by the Commissioners of Pharmacy in their report which seems to reflect upon the Legislative Committee. I want to explain that. The facts are, the report of last year's Proceedings, owing to various strikes and such things, we have not had before us. So that matter of conference with the Pharmacy Commission has been entirely out of my mind, as chairman of the Legislative Committee, on any matters. I assume it is in reference to the change of the pharmacy law, isn't it? I want to say here, what I said at the last meeting, when it was discussed, that personally I think it would be a most unwise thing to ever open that pharmacy law before any legislature elected as they are now.

MR. FLEISCHNER: We did not refer to change. For instance, individually the members of the Board are under bonds to the state. We consider that wrong. The Treasurer is the man should be under bonds. The other question is the advisability of having an inspector on the Board.

MR. LEVERTY: There was one other with reference to the $5 paid that the young man should have another chance before the $5 is returned. But those who come from out of the state just to try it out, let them pay the $5 whether they get through

or not.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that. But that necessitates the opening of that law. I assert the moment you open that pharmacy law before the legislature of Connecticut for those simple changes no one knows what will be put into that law! As bad as some few of those things may be, settle them rather than to attempt to put in an amendment to that pharmacy law, for so sure as you open that pharmacy law the chances are they will sweep the whole thing offthe statute-book! They have in other states. In Illinois they have trouble. In every state where they open the pharmacy law to improve it somebody will get up amendment after amendment-not what you want, but some one else wants. There is one unconstitutional thing in that pharmacy law today. I don't believe it is constitutional for this Association to name six men to the governor from whom shall be appointed a Commissioner. The governor can ignore it, and did in Massachusetts. I don't believe it is constitutional. Somebody will rise up if you open that pharmacy law. That is why I have been so loath to open that law to amend any little thing. Maybe I am too conservative on it.

MR. LEVERTY: That recommendation relative to bonding one man, and the suggestion relative to that $5, the then Attorney General considered was very good thing, and said he would introduce it himself.

In order to show the standing of the Pharmacy Board, to the state Association, I will cite this instance. When the Secretary appeared before the Committee on Appropriations for the appropriation for the Pharmacy Commission, there were a number

of other Commissions up there asking for appropriations, and they were all sat on pretty strongly; and when the Secretary appeared, the chairman asked on what ground the Pharmacy Commissioner asked for this appropriation; wanted to know if it was self-supporting; and he had the facts and figures there, and read them off. The chairman said, "There is no question. about that," and he granted the request immediately. And I claim, if the Pharmacy Commission, while it turns in to the State anywhere from $800 to $900 a year has a hold stronger than any other commission before the committee; and if we can hold these 25 or 30 fellows who come in every year, and turn in so much more every year to the State, it makes us stronger. The question has been brought up a number of times as to whether the amount we turn in to the State could not be utilized to cut down the license fee. Don't you do it! There is not a state in the country but would have a law like that if they could. In turning that money in to the State you have a hold on the legislature. You can go up there and ask them to vote to kill this bill which is annoying us. You can go up there and say that the State is enriched anywhere from $800 to $1000 each year. It is the strongest hold you have on any legislative body; and if you can increase that, you increase your hold so much more. The Attorney General was willing to introduce those things for us. You get these fellows up there, and those that don't get through, come again. If they come from New York, Massachusetts, or anywhere else, they go into the store, and it gives them a prestige to hang up five or six licenses.

MR. WILLIAMS: You would get the money in the first examination.

MR. LEVERTY: Would we have to return it if they do not pass?

MR. LEVY: Do they return the money in other states if they do not get through?

MR. FLEISCHNER: No, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I really believe you will all think as I do, that we have a splendid confidence in the Pharmacy Commission. We are glad to have heard the talk, and know we have perfect