The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-11-21
WILSON IGNORES
TAFT'S DECISION
DR.. Wiley's Foes Still Active,
and DR.. Rusty Not Paid for
His Services as Chemist.
EXPLANATION BY SECRETARY
Iie Says There Is Some Question
About Dr. Rusby's Salary Since
July l, Owing to Technicality.

Washington November go, .s
noout two months since President Taft
gave his decision in the controversy IN
the Department of Agriculture that
erose from the efforts Of certain op-
ponents OF DE- Harvey w Wiley TO
have the pure food champion ousted
on the ground that nc had connived at
violation OF law IN securing the ap-
pointment OF Dr IL H. Rusby. OF New
ark, y. j., ne an expert pharmacogno-
Clst In the New York laboratory of thu
Bureau Of Chemistry,
III that decision the President
thwa-tnd tho plan Of the anti Wiley
eSoal BY holding that tho okief chem
3st had been justified in what he did
The President made sone slight str.c-
7ure on DR.. RusSy. but 81 was not cal
culated TO Interfere with the contin-
vance OF DR. Rusby's services to the
Bureau Of Chemistry. Up 20 the time
mat decision was returned DR. Rushy's
salary and expense accounts had been
held up By the department 70 rseveral
hold mp by The department for sevoral
was owing to him, But despite. the
fact that tho President settled the con
1Toversy favorably 10 Or Wiley and
Dr Rusty, the department has con
1inued to withhold DR. Rushy's pay
and expense accounts until there is
NOW owed to him about sLoG6 salary
and another Sio0 or more for expenses,
rot counting Incidental expenses for
slle last five months for which DIR.
Rrsby has no; vet given an account.
The amounts due Dr. Rusty nre prao-
ideally rs follows.
SALARY from April !. at $500
per annum Observation-Disclosures 1.o6e
s-Under authorization No ~.
current expenses from April
TO July ], about. ....... 20
s-Under authorization No. 4.22O.
travelling expenses to Coco
Cola trial at Chattanooga,
Tenn, about. ............... 60
h--Under authorization TO attend
hearing of Personnel Com
nittee MISREPRESENTATION. 20
In addition 10 this are the current
Expenses since July /. When the efrort
60 GUST DIR. Wiley reached its climax
last summer the question arose ar to
whether or not Dr. Rusby should con-
tinue his work IN the New York lab
oratory. At that time he asked the
Committee on Personnel OF the depart
mept al the close of his hearing before
st whether he should continue at work
or not. There was conference among
the committee members. with the re-
srlt that DIR. Rusty was directed TO
continue his duties, This instruction
mas not since been Cancelled or modi-
ned In any way, and so far as Or Rus
6S knows Is sim in force.
Before Dr.. Rusty received the hp-
potntment on which the anti Wiley
'cabai undertook to secure the dismis-
sal Of Or. Wiley. he had been working
on an appointment at 50 a day. It is
now held by DR. Rusby's friends that
Ii tho later appointment were Illegal
which the President says was not the
nase--the old appointment would then
be still! valid, and he should receive
pay at the s. q day rate.
But the department is nayinr him
nothing. and viii not even reimburse
him for the money he spent out OF his
own pocket IN attending the Coca Cola
frIai. 10 which ne was sent as gov
eInmen; witness
Repeated inquiry AT the Department
of Agriculture has taied utterly to
elicit any satisfactory explanation or
ihe reason for thus withholding Or
Rusbys pay ana expenses Secretary
Wilson has explained that there was
Some question a. 10 The salary since
July by reason OF rGe fact that DR.
Rusty had declined" 10 accept n
transfer from the miscellaneous ron
Of the department. paid from the fund
appropriated fur general expenses Blu
s'cau of Chemistry. Food and Drugs
Act, salaries out OF Washington" TO
the miscellaneous roll paid from the
FUND Appropriated for the enforcement
OF the FOOD ana drugs act. in the su-
-rau % Chemistry"
Or Kusby was not an expert in de-
paTtment politics, nor was he familiar
with the intricacles OF appropriation
blls ana tho SHIFTS that have TO he
made by dlEbursiug ohcors at lines
y there was any difference between
ne two nppointments lie was not able
EASILY 10 distinguish IT, ana No con.
riHdec that insSmuuh as his appoint
nent had been called IN question ana
was then the subtec; Of controversy,
% hal better hold to what BE had
And so he wrote 10 Secretary Wilson
sayinE:
Ina much As tho IegaMty OF my EN-.
rioEment as pharmacognocist at this
salury has been called in question. and
lnasnuch as I am not a fudge OF such
matters ana 10 not desire to take any
Z, .r---,----------------.s-.