The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-09-16


recommendations he directed attention
to a clause in the appropriation bill of
March. 1907, still in force, that enjoins
upon the head OF each department the
duty of exacting from the employees in
that department who are under an an
nual salary, labor amounting to seven
hours day.
"An examination of the records
satisfied me that the questions had not
been presented to the persons involved
in such a way as to enable them to
make full defense. They had only been
called as witnesses and cross-examined
without fun understanding that they
were under trial which might involve
their dismissal Accordingly directed
you to submit the whole record to-
gether with the opinion Of the attorney
general to each one Of the persons
charged and invite from him an an
swer. These answers were fled in due
course and are quite full in detail.
The answer Of DR.. Wiley specifically
denies that he ever saw the corre-
spondence between DR.. Kebler and DIR.
Rusby or that he ever consciously en-
tered into an arrangement by which
DIR. Rusby was In effect to receive COM
pensation at a rate In excess OF that
prescribed by the statute as interpre-
ted by the attorney general The
truth Is, It appears from the answers
Of DR.. Wiley, DR.. Kebler, and DR.. Bige-
low that there had been a good many
presidents in the department which
Stoned to justify the employment of
DR.. Rusby at an annual salary when II
was not expected that his entire time
would be taken up. This was the case
with respect to the employment Of
what was known as the Remsen board.
That board was created by order OF
President Roosevelt for the very i'm
portant purpose Of enabling the secre-
tary OF agriculture to have reviewed
the decisions Of the bureau Of chem
istry in cases where those decisions
involved disputed technical questions
and would, II sustained, have destroyed
valuable and profitable business here
tofore regarded as lawful. In such
cases It was deemed wise not to allow
the destruction OF what would be
otherwise lawful property and business
on the decision of only one txpert or
the head of bureau. Accordingly the
Remsen board was created by a num-
Der OF experts all Of whom were known
to be engaged in other professional
work than that Of the reviewing board;
DR.. Remsen, the head Of the board, oc-
cupies an important position in Johns
Hopkins University, and that Is his
principal occupation. Another mem
| Der, DR.. Russell Chittenden, of the
Sheffield Scientific School, is dean of
| that school and that is his chief voca-
| ton. Hence, the employment Of the
Remsep board at the rate of $4,000 a
year for each member necessarily in
volved the proposition that such an an
| nual salary might lawfully be paid
without rQuiring labor Of seven hours
| day from each person so employed.
This the attorney general in his
| opinion intimated is contrary to the
| statute, but in the agricultural depart
ment 1t was not thought to be the
case. Solicitor McCabe, to whom re-
| cd hA - b. H.
| in the case, replied that In the prac-
| tice of the department the clause in
| the appropriation act Of March 4, 1907
had been held to have no application
to the employment OF experts outside
OF Washington.
1T is necessary fully to understand
this difference between the attitude Of
the department toward an employment
at an annual salary OF this kind and
the opinion OF the attorney general In
this matter, because If DR.. Wiley and
his associates had understood that the
$1,000 annual salary required them to
exact from DR.. Rusby seven hours a
| day for all the work days of the year,
the NOT course his employment must
have been known by them to be Illegal
and under the circumstances to be only
| cover for q different contract Of en-
| ployment; but II they understood. as
seems to have been the case generally
in the agricultural department, that
such an employment at an annual sal
airy might be entered into with experts
Of this kind and only subject the ex-
perts to an obligation to work for the
/ department whenever called upon, with
the understanding that they had some
other vocation to which their chief at
| tention was given, II clearly reconciled
the action of DR.. Wiley with desire
to comply with the law. The recon-
mendation Of the attorney general
given to me was upon only part Of the
| evidence and hence his judgment was
different doubtless from what It would
have been If he had had the whole
record before him as have now.
TT seems fairly clear that DIR. Wiley,
after an examination Of the records,
concluded that employment Of DR.. Rus
by at 50 day for laboratory work and
$50 a day for court work, would
amount to $500 q year II the depart
needed him, and that It was this ar
rangement to which he consented.
In DR.. Kebler's anxiety to induce
DIR. Rusby to accept the terms of en-
Payment, he certainly betrayed a will
lingness to .construe the contract of
employment Of DR.. Rusby at $1,000 a
year in one way to reconcile II with
| the law and in another way to satisfy
DIR. Iusby in hts wish to secure $20>a
day, and think he ought to be repri-
manded for his disingenuous conduct
in writing such letters as he did. He
the statue as interpreted by the attor-
ney general and, indeed, that he did
not know exactly what the ruling was;
but whether he did or not, the Ian
/ &guage OF his letters does not have a
commendable tone and suggests a VIII
| lingness to resort to evasion that calls
for official reproof.
TN respect to DR.. Rusby / do not
/ find that he was advised at all as to
the legal difficulty and that he was
only seeking for additional compensa-
| ton which he thought to be adequate.
THE truth is. the limitations upon
| bureau chiefs and heads OF depart
| ments to exact per diem compensations
| for the employment of experts In such
| cases as this is a doubtful legislative
| policy. Here is the pure food act which
| It is Of the highest Importance to en-
| force and In respect to which the in
| terests opposed to its enforcement are
| likely to have all the money at their
/ command needed to secure the most
effective expert evidence. The govern
/ ment ought not to be at disadvan-
tage in this regard, and one cannot
withhold ones sympathy with an
earnest effort by DR.. Wiley to pay
proper compensation and secure expert
assistance in the enforcement OF such
an important a statue, certainly IN the
beginning when the questions arising