New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-16
Rusty during the preceding two years You

fere with your regular duties to a minimum
extent.
This I'D not satisfy Dr. Rusby. and he
sought further information in letter dated
March 3. 1911, as follows:
kindly recall that on my side Inc basis
OF compensation is not less than S2p PEI
DAY AZ that rate only eighty DAYS WORK
per year are provided for, and that Is not
time enough satisfactorily to perform more
than tne current port work mere lcaNing no
time for examination OF interstate samples
especially Ihicrosconical examinations or
for attendance at court. For every day az
court on the average one DAY or prepara-
ton Is required The above facts lead 10
the inquiry. would not the salary named
compel me either to do very much more
than eighty days work per year or other
wise fall 10 do the necessary amount OF
work in a satisfactory manner
On March DR.. Kebler wrote TO Or. Rus
ing:
Personally I am If the opinion that your
new appointment Is much better than the
old. Under this appointment YOU can do a.
little as one days work per month and YOU
get your salary ON the other hand. If YOU
work five or ten days your salary would be
the same per month II seems 10 me that
you have the matter largely In your own
hands | am satisfied that II YOU do not
accept the new appointment nothing more
can be done. and your services, so far AZ
our work is concerned. can no longer he
utilized materisly in the future -.
Ter. saying thar he had decided 10 accept
the appointment.
The Gist Of the Charges.
The nub Of the charge by the Personnel
Board was that Or Wiley, Or Kobler. Or.
Bigelow and Or Rusty IN effect conspired
10 put on the record contract Tor gen
eral employment of DIR. Rusby services
for Sl,6s a year but actually and secreuF
made 4 contract with him ny which he was
only 20 do enough work during the year Tor
the $3.50 10 secure him compensation OF
eco day and that this was done IN de-
liberate and defiant violation Of the law as
interpreted by the Attorney General IN me
opinion already referred TO- IN Vhlcn ne
held that Congress had limited the compen
sation II experts 10 ~ q day.
After YOU submitted 70 me the report OF
the Personnel Board | ASKED the Attorney
General 10 examine II and give me hi !.
concerned the violation OF the law as inter
preted by him IN one of his opinions. re
did so, and advised me mat the recon
mendstions Of the Personnel Board ought 70
be carried out. In connection with his rec
concentrations h. invited attention 10
clause IN the act Of Congress approved
March l5 1925 still in force. that en1oins
upon the head of each department the duty
of eXacting from the employees In that ds-
partment who are under an annual salary
labor amounting 70 seven hours every day
bur a holiday.
An examination of the records satisfied
me that the questions had not been pre-
scented TO the persons involved in such A
fence. They had only been called al wit,
nesses and cross-eXamined without fun
understanding that they were under trlal
which might involve their. dismissal. -
Accordingly. l directed you 10 submit the
whole record. together with the opinion or
the Attorney General, 10 each one Of the
persons charged and invite from him an
answer Theae answers were filed in due
course and are quite full in detail
The answer of DR.. Wiley specifically de-
MES that he ever saw the correspondence
l. 1
he ever consciously entered into an arrange
ment by which DR. Rusby was in euect 70
receive compensation At rate IN excess
of that prescribed by the statute as inter-
preted by the Attorney General
PRESIDENTS for Employing Husby.
The truth is. II appears from the answers
Of DIR. Wiley DR.. kebler and Or BlseloW
dents in the department which seemed TO
justify the employment OF DR.. Rusoy d;
an annual salary when # was not expected
that his entire time would be taken up
his was the case with respect 70 the en-
plOyn ent of what vas known as the
Remsen board. That board was created
by order Of President Roosevelt for the
very important purpose or enaoIng lns
the decisions of the Bureau Of Chemistry
III cases where those decisions involved DIS.
puted technical questions and would, II
sustained, have destroyed valuable and
profitable BUSINESS Heretofore regarded as
lawful. In such cases il was deemed wise
rot 70 allow the destruction OF what would
be otherwise lawful property and business
on the decision of only one expert or the
head of a bureau Accordingly, the Rem-
sen board was created OF 2 number OF eN-
per's all Of whom we've known TO be en-
gaged in other professional work than that I
Of the reviewing board. DR.. RemSen, the
head Of the board. occupies an important
position IN Johns Hopkins University ana
that IS his principal occupation. Another
member. DR.. Russell Chittenden, OF the
Sheffield Scientific School is dean Of that
school and that is his chief vocation
beard ar the rate Of ZOO a year for each
member necessarily involved the proposi-
ton that such an annual salary might
lawfully be paid without requiring labor
of seven hours 2 day from each person
SO employed.
This. the Attorney General in his opin-
ion ntimates. IL contrary 70 the statute
but in the Agricultural Department il was
not thought TO be the case. Solicitor Nc
Cabe. 10 whom I referred the question OF
presidents made in the case, replied that
in the practice Of the department the
clause IN the appropriation act Of March
10. 1898, had been held 70 have no applica-
ton 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 he Attorney General in this matter.
because ii DR. Wiley and his associate
had understood that the $1,000 annual sal
airy required them 70 exact from DR.. Rusty
seven hours day for all the work days
Of the year. then, Of course, his employ
n:ent must have been known by them 10
b. illegal and under the circumstances 10
bc only a cover for different contract Of
employment, but II they understood. as
seems 70 have been the case generally in
the Agricultural Department, that Such an
employment at an annual salary might be
entered into with experts Of this KIND,
and only subject the experts 10 an obliga-
ton to work for the department whenever
called upon with the understanding that
they had some other vocation to which
their chief attention was given. II clearly
reconciled the action Of Or. Wiley with 4
desire 20 comply with the law.