Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-07-13
Salary Payable Monthly.

In reply to this, e. M. Chace wrote to
DR.. Rusby stating that owing to DR..
Bigelow's absence his letter had come
to him for attention, and while he had
not taken the matter up officially in any
way, his understanding Of DR.. Rusby' s
appointment was that he was at liberty
to do such outside work as came within
the proper limits, except on the days of
his departmental service.
THE salary stated Is drawn monthly,
whether or not work has been done dur
ing the month"
March DR.. Kebler wrote to DR.. Rus
by. stating. with other things:
Personally 1 am of the opinion that
your new appointment is much better
than the old Under this appointment
you can do as 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. It seems to me that you have
the matter largely in your own hands.
am satisfied that if you do not accept
the new appointment nothing more can
be done, and your services, so far as
utilized materially in the future"
March DR.. Rusby wrote to DR.. Keb-
Ter saying that he had decided to accept
the appointment
The Attorney General. after reviewing
the evidence taken by the committee on
personnel. states:
1.-THE evidence submitted by the COM
mittee on personnel clearly demonstrates
the fact that DIR. Keblel. and Dr. Bigelow
entered into a scheme, to which DIR. Wiley
lent his countenance and assistance. to
procure the appointment of DIR. Rusby
at the rate of 81 600 per year under an
express agreement with him that he was
to do no more work under this appoint
ment than would be paid for at the rate
of $50 per day of seven and half hours
when engaged in laboratory work, and
$50 per day when engaged in court The
evidence clearly shows that these gentle
men resorted to a scheme to create an APP
pearance of compliance with the law.
while at the same time distinctly agree
ing not to comply with ii.
Such an agreement certainly merits
condign punishment, and because of the
facts set forth / recommend the approval
by you of the recommendations OF the
committee on personnel
Letter From DR.. Rusby.
DR.. H H. Rusty, July IL. replying to
letter from the Secretary, dated July
:, in which he was given an opportunity
to give final answer to the charges
formulated and passed on by the Attor-
ney General. protested that there had
been no hearing on these charges. He
states ''there was a hearing, but
in answer to an inquiry, that at that
time there were no charges.
In view of these facts he suggests that
his letter should be taken as standing in
lieu of his testimony at such hearing,
had there been one. He protests that
at the hearing which was held there was
no opportunity for the presentation OF
tons propounded, so that an opening
was made for a one-sided presentation
| to the Attorney General to constitute the
basis of his opinion.
| that the Attorney General has made the
charges based on this ex parte evidence
and has then pronounced verdict in re-
| lation to them
There is, however. a good, broad fact
important in assisting you to a just de-
cision, namely, that some facts necessary
to the understanding OF the acts of my
| self and my associates have not beer
presented to you at all, and others have
reached you in such a form as to lead
you to misunderstood the very essence OF
| the question.
The first point to which I ask your
| attention is the statement that begins al
the bottom of the second page of the At
| torney Generals report, as follows: This
| reduction in salary was very objection
| able to DR.. Rusby. who seemed to have
| complained about it, and finally to have
| advised DIR. Kebler. chief of the drus
| laboratory in the bureau or chemistry
| that unless some better arrangement coult
| be made he could not continue in his EN-.
| pIoyment in the bureau. l trust that yoI
| will give careful attention to my correc
| ton of this statement. because. as i see
| It, 1t throws upon me a responsibility thai
should rest wholly upon Solicitor McCabe
Objects to Salary Cut.
1T is not true that this arrangement,
| u-a @ very obiectiona BILE to me and that
1 complained about 1t. On the contrary
was asked at the time that 1t was pro.
posed whether it was satisfactory, and
| replied that 1t was. 1t is quite true tina,
a reduction of more than one-half in
salary was not agreeable, and may have
| expressed dissatisfaction, rather with
some of the conditions. which required the
| expenditure of great deal of time IL
going and coming in order to get credit