The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-09-16

or ten days, your salary would be the same per month It seems to me that you have the matter largely in your own hands. I am satisfied that if you do not accept the new appointment nothing more can be done and your services so far as our work is con eerned. no longer be utilized materially in the future
 "Oh March 6, Dr. Rugsby wrote to Dr. Kebler saying that he had decided to accept the appointments. The hub of the charge by the personal board was that Dr. Wiley. Dr. Kebler, Dr. Bigler and Dr. Rugsby in effect con- spired to put on record contract for q general employment of Dr. Rugby's services for $500 a year, but actually and secretly made a contract with him by which he was only to do enough work during the year for the $500 to secure him compensation of s20 a day and that this was done in deliber- ate and defiant violation of the law as interpreted by the Attorney General in the opinion already referred to in which he held that Congress had linn ited the compensation of experts to $9 q day.
 After you submitted to me the re- port of the personnal board l asked | the Attorney General to examine 1t and | give me nlS DpiAlOn III that IeSptttr because it concerned the violation of the law as interpreted by him in one 1 of his opinions. He did and advised me the recommendation of thesperson2 mel board ought to be carried out. In connection with his recommendations he directed attention to a clause in the appropriation act of March 15, 1908, still l in force, that enjoins upon the head l of each department the duty of exact | i,at ,l1 o,-t ment, who are under an annual salary, labor amounting to seven hours a day.
 An examination of the records satis- fled me the question had not been present. ed 10 the persons involved in such way to enable them to make full defense. They had only been called as witnesses and cross examined without a full understand ing that they were under trial which night involve their dismissal Accord irgly I directed you to submit the whole record. together with the opinion of the Attorney General. to 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.
 Wiley Makes Denial
 "The answer of pr. Wiley specifically denies that he ever saw the correspond erce between Dr. Kebler and Dr. Rusby,
 
 an arrangement by which Dr. Rusby was in effect to receive compensation at a rate in excess of that prescribed by the stat Ute as interpreted by the Attorney Gen eraI. The truth is, it appears from the answers of Dr. Wiley, Dr. kebler and Dr. Bigelow, that there had been good many precedents in the department which seemed to justify the employment of Dr. Rusby at an annual salary when it was m ft,,aa be taken up. This was the case with re- spect to the employment of what was known the Remsen board. That board was created by order of President Roose- velt for the very important purpose of enabling the Secretary of Agriculture to have reviewed the decisions of the bu- reau of chemistry in case those decisions involved disputed technical questions, and would if sustained have destroyed val fore regarded as lawful. In such cases it was deemed wise not to allow the de- struction of what would be otherwise lawful property and business on the de- Csion of only one expert or the head of bureau. Accordingly the Remsen board v as created by a number of experts, all of whom were known to be engaged in other professional work than that of the reviewing board. Dr. Remsen. the head
 
 sition in Johns Hopkins university. and that is his principal occupation. Another l member Dr. Russell Chittenden of the Sheffield Scientific school, is dean of that school, and that is his chief vocation Hence the employment of the Remsen board at the rate of 5000 a year for each member necessarily involved the proposi- l ton that such an annual salary might l le wfully be paid without reou.lng labor | p several bplIrS a dn1- so employed.
 l This the Attorney General in his opin- | ion intimates is contrary to the statl;.s but in the agricultural department it was l not thought to be the case Solicitor Me. Cabe. to whom l referred the question of precedents made in the case replied that l in the practice of the department the clause in the appropriation act of March 4, 1907, had been held to have no appli- cation to the employment of experts out | side of Washington.
 | The Difference
 "It is necessary fully to understand this l difference between the attitude of the de l partment. toward an employment at al annual salary of this kind and the opinior of the Attorney General, because if Dr | Wiley and his assistants had understoo, the s1Go0 annual salary required them to exact from Dr. Rusby seven hours a da, for all the work days of the year. ther on the other hand his employment mus have been known by them to be illega and under the circumstances to be only cover for the different contracts of em 1 ployment, but If they understand, ai seems to be the case generally in the az T ricultural department. that such an em | ployment at an annual salary might b, entered into with experts of this kind ano only subject the experts to an oblisn tlon to work for the department when , ever called upon, with the understand ing that they had some other vocation [, which their chief attention was given i