The meeting adjourned at 11.30, until three o’clock.
The Council met at 3.45, Mr. John A. Clark in the chair. All were present except Mr. G. S. Hobart. The Council went into committee of the whole on the motion of Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. McKee, on the report of the By-laws and Legislation Committee, Mr. Lawrence in the chair.
On clause 1, Mr. Watters moved that the name of J. W. McEachern be inserted as employer.--Agreed. Clauses 2 and 3, dealing with applications, were passed without discussion. Clause 4 having been reached, the chairman read several letters from George B. Dingman, Buffalo, asking what had been done regarding his application for a diploma. In his first try Mr. Dingman had been successful in all subjects except dispensing, but had since passed in that subject. Mr. Sanders, at whose request the correspondence was read, thought the explanations made sufficient, and the clause was passed.
Discussion arose over clause 5, from the fact that the applicant, Mr. A. W. Caton, admitted having been out of business since 1887. Mr. D’Avignon thought Mr. Caton wanted to set his wife up in business, and by saying that on paying up his arrears he would be admitted was paramount to saying that his wife would not. The clause was passed. Clauses 6 and 7 were passed. On clause 8 Registrar Lewis stated that recently he had an application from an apprentice of Hargreaves Bros., of whom one member had not paid fees. Four dollars was still claimed for one of their branches.
Mr. Sanders thought the precedent in McGregor & Parks’ case should not rule.
It was explained that three of the Hargreaves had interest in one store and only two in another, and when they made this application they had three businesses.
After further discussion progress was reported, and, on the motion of Mr. Hall, the report, as also the report of the Committee on By-laws, was referred back for amendment. The following is the gist of the reports as finally adopted:--
“Your Committee on By-laws and Legislation make the following recommendations: (1) Referring to the two letters of A. L. Foster, of Ottawa, advise that the registrar be instructed to write him, that there being no evidence before the committee that the apprentice did indenture himself as stated it would be necessary for him to send affidavits, duly sworn to by the apprentice and his employer, Mr. J. W. McEachern, proving his cases, and that when received we feel disposed to comply with the request. (2) In the matter of Alfred Wilson, of Radcliffe Infirmary, and the corroborative letter of Richard Bremridge, we recommend the registrar be instructed to write to Mr. Wilson that if he can produce to this Council satisfactory evidence that he is a pharmaceutical chemist of Great Britain, he may register. (3) In the case of W. S. McClintock, of Galva, Ill., we advise that the registrar be instructed to write him that our by-laws prevent the Council recognising his claim for registration, as he has failed to pass on the subject of chemistry, and that at present there is no arrangement for exchange of diplomas with the State Board of Pharmacy of Illinois. (4) In the case of George B. Dingman, of Buffalo, we find by the evidence submitted to your committee that he is entitled to registration. (6) In the matter of A. W. Caton, Owassa, Mich., we recommend the registrar be instructed to write him that on payment of arrears due to this Council he may be registered. (6) We recommend that the registrar be instructed to notify Mr. Geo. M. Everist that his claim, made on behalf of R. E. Sinclair, cannot be recognised, as Dr. G. M. Eastern is not a registered pharmaceutical chemist. (7) The claim of Malcolm C. Rose of six months’ service with Mr. Hazelton cannot be entertained, as Mr. Rose’s apprenticeship contract was not registered. (8) In the matter of W. A. Hargreaves, of Toronto, your committee would recommend that the precedents established in similar cases are according to the Act, and that we cannot comply with Mr. Hargreaves’ request. (9) In the matter of J. H. Emery we are of opinion that his apprenticeship, served in New York State, under E. G. Watts, who is a regularly qualified pharmaceutical chemist of Ontario, though resident in New York State, will count in the same way as if served in Ontario. (10) We have examined the claims of Mr. J. C. Nicholls, largely based on the same grounds as others referred to in the report of the Education Committee of last February, and that like them Mr. Nicholls’ claim cannot be entertained. (11) We recommend the application of J. J. Watson, of Toronto, be granted, and that he be credited with the time from January 7 to August 13, 1888, served with Mr. J. C. Hazelton.