The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-09-16
sse,s shown by the papers stated

HDr Rusby lived in New York aud
was employed as a scientific expert in
the Bureau of Chemistry to examine
importation of drugs, under an agree
ment by which he received $50 a daS
for laboratory work, and $50 q day
for attendance IN court,
DIR. Rusby Objected.
"On May "a. 1909. the Attorney-Gen-
eral advised the Secretary of Agri-
culture that. under the act or March
is, 1898 GA Stat. 1850 no classified
%acientiic investigator should receive q
rs, 1909. an order was issued putting
him IN the roll at a salary of 50 a
day when a%ctually employed.
"Dr. Rusty objected to this and APP
Piled to DR.. kebler, chief OF the drug
laboratory. to secure a different ar
rangement. The matter seems to lave
been held in allegiance for some time.
Finally. as a result OF conference be-
tween DR.. Kebler, DR.. Bigelow and
DR.. Wiley. with respect TO the request
OF DR.. Rusty for an increased sompen-
sation, DIR. Wiley said he woul sub
NIT TO you for your approval an ap-
pointment OF DIR. Rusty at q salary 1T
the rate of $4,000 per annum on the
miscellaneous roll. DIR. Riselow then
wrote to DIR. Rusty under date Of
January q. 1911, as follows:
"Nebler and / took the matter UP
with DR.. Wiley to-day. and he said
he would approve it IL we had on rec
ord an understanding with you so we
could not be held responsible for your
receiving an annual salary and not de-
voting you whole time TO the bu-
reau. ( told him that IL you were
given an appointment at the rate of
sl70 a month. you would agree not 20
receive more than 500 a day for time
actually employed. BY that l mean
the usual official day OF seven and one
half hours. This would be equivalent
to eight and one-half days a month
on the average. l told him that If it
happened that your work for the de-
partment on the average to
less time than that you would ask
for leave of absence for sufficient time
TO bring it to that basis
Or. Rusby answered this letter and
questioned what was meant by it. He
said he did not understand Bigelow's
letter clearly. and supposed that il he
did not earn the entire salary, he
would not expect to receive any more
than was earned.
Appointment Approved.
Meantime, on February 6, DR.. Wiley
submitted to YOU an appointment of
DR.. Rusby at a salary at the rate Of
$500 per annum on the miscellane-
gus roll. He made the reduction after
examining the records and finding the
amount OF work done by DR.. Rusty
during the preceding two years. You
approved this appointment.
After the appointment DR.. Bigelow
wrote DR.. Rusby that he thought the
present Management was better than
the former arrangement, when he was
receiving $50 per day for laboratory
work and $50 q day for court work,
because he said you are now assured
of getting Il certain amount each
month, irrespective of the time spent,
and you can still SO plan your work as
TO interfere with your regular duties
TO a minimum extent
This did not satisfy DR.. Rusby. and
he sought further information in a
letter dated March 3, 1911.
ION March 4 DR.. Kebler wrote 10 DR..
Rusby, stating, among other things, the
following:
Personally, 1 am OF the opinion
that your new appointment is much
better than the old. Under this ap-
pointment you can do as little as one
days work per month. and you get your
salary. 1t seems to me that you have
the matter Largely in your own hands
On March 6 DR.. Rusty wrote to DR..
Kebler, saying that he had decided TO
accept the appointment.
The nub of the charge by the per-
sonnet board vas that Dr.. Wiley, DIR.
Kebler. DR.. Bigelow and Dr.. Rusby,
IN effect. c~onspired to put on the rec
ORD 8 contract for u general employ
ment OF Dr.. Rusby's services for $1,000
a year. but actually and secretly made
a contract with him by which he was
only to do enough work during tho
year for the $500 to secure him q
compensation OF $40 q day, and that
yhlc rpae 49,. g.
violation of the law. as interpreted by
the Attorney-General in the opinion al
ready referred to. III which he held that
Congress had limited the compensation
OF experts 10 so a day.
After you submitted TO me the re-
port OF the personnel board l asked the
Attorney-General to examine it and
give me his opinion in respect TO the
matter. He advised me that the rec
concentrations ct the personnel board
ought TO be carried out,
Full Defense Impossible.
A examination of the records sat-
istied me that the questions had not
been presented to the persons involved
In such a way as to enable them to
make full defense. Accordingly | d.
rected you to submit the whole record
10 each one of the persons charged and
invite from him an answer. These
answers were filed in due course and
are quite full in detail. The answer OF
Dr. Wiley specifically denies tina he
ever saw the correspondence between
DR.. kehler and DR.. Rusty or thai he
ever consciously entered into any ar
rangement; by which DIR. Rusby was.
In effect, TO receive compensation at n
rate In excess of that prescribed by
the statute. as interpreted by the At
torney-General.
THE truth is, it appears from the
nswer OF DR.. Wiley, DR.. KebIer and
DR.. Bigelow that there had been a
good many presidents in the depart
ment which seemed to justify the en-
ployment OF DIR. Rusby at an annual
salary when 1t was not expected that
his entire time would be taken up. This
was the case with respect TO the EN-.
ployment of what was known as the
= Ii LIZ La-A