Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1911-09-21

Of the personnel board, | asked the at
torney- general to examine and give me
his opinion In respect to the matter. be-
cause IT conconed the violation OF the
law as interpreted by him In one of his !
opinions. He did so and advised mo that |
the recon /endations of the personnel
board ought to be carried out. In con /
nection with his recommendations he in
Vited attention to a clause in the Gppro- /,
pration bill of March. 1907, still in force, |
that cnjoins upon the head of each de- |
partment the duty of exactinE from tho
employees in that department who arc
under an annual salary, labor amounting
to 81 a day.
AN examination of the records satisfied
me that the questions had not been pre-
scented 10 the persons involved in such a
way as to enable them to make fun de-
Tense They had only been called AS wit
nesses and cross-examined without a full
understanding that they were under trial
which might involve their dismissal AC-
cordingly ] directed you to submit the
whole record. together with the opinion
of the attorney to each one of
the persons charged and invite from him
an answer. These answers were flied in
due course and are quite full in details.
The answer Of Or. Wiley specifically de-
MES that he ever saw the correspondence
between Dr.. Kebler and Dr.. Rusty or
that he ever consciously entered into an
arrangement by which Dr. Rusby was in
effect to receive compensation at rate in
excess of that he prescribed by the statute
as Interpreted BY the attorney general
The truth In it appears from the answers
of DR. Wiley. Or. Kebler and Dr. Bigc-
low. that there had been a good many pre-
cedents In the department which seemed
TO justify the employment of DR. itushN
at an annual salary when 1t was not eX-
pected that his entire time would be taken
up.
This was the case with respect to the
employnent of what was known as the
Remsen board.
The employment OF the Remsen board
at the rate of s., coo a year for each mem
her necessarily involved the proposition
that such an annual salary might lawful
" be paid without requiring labor of
seven hours n day from each person SO
employed This the attorney-general in
his opinion intimates is CONTRARY to
the statute, but in the agricultural de-
partment It was not thought to be the
case.
The recommended ton Of the attorney
general given to me was upon only part
of the evidence and hence his judgment
was different, doubtless. from what 1t
would have been If he had the whole rec
ord before him. as have now. II seems
fairly clear that Dr. Wiley after an
examination Of the records, excluded
that the employment of Or. Rusty at
80 day for laboratory work ann $50 a
day for court work would amount to
81 600 year If the department called on
him whenever they needed him and that
II was this arrangement to which You
consented.
In Dr. Kebler's anxiety to induce DR.
Rusty to accept the new terms Of en-
ployment he certainly betrayed a willing
ness to construe the contract of employ
ment Of Or. Rusby at 81, 900 a year in one
way to reconcile 1t with the law and in
another way to satisfy Or. Rusty In his
I wish to secure $50 day and | think he
ought to be reprmanded for his dislngen-
uous conduct in writing such letters as
he did He said that he did not intend to
violate the statute as interpreted by the
attorney general and indeed that he did
but whether he did or not the language
Of his letters do not have a commendable
tone and suggest a willingness 20 resort
to evasion that call for official reproof.
In respect to DR.. Rusty do not find that
he was advised at all as to the legal diff
lsculty that he was only seeking for addi-
tional compensation which he thought to
be adequate.
The truth Is. the limitations upon bu-
rcau chiefs and heads of departments TO
exact per diem Compensaticns for the EN-
| ployment OF experts in such cases as
this is doubtful legislative policy. Here
| is the pure food act which il is of the
| highest Importance 10 enforce. and in re-
| speCt to which the interests opposed to
| its enforcement are likely to have all the
money at their command needed to Sc
| cure the most effective expert evidence.
| The government ought not to be at dis
advantage in this regard and one can
| not withhold ones sympathy with an
earnest effort by DR. Wiley to pay proper
| compensation and secure expert assis-
lance in the enforcement of so import
ant a statute certainly in the beginning,
| when the questions arising under Il are
| of capital importance to the public.
!
ate effort to evade the statute as con
strued by the attorney-general accom-
panied by scheme to conceal the eva
sion and violation. should think the
punishment recommended by the per
sonnet board, and concurred in by the at
torrey-g general. was none too great; but
an examination Of tho whole case salts
flies me that a different construction
| 10 hat
that the evidence does not show that Or
Wiley was a party TO the correspondence
or the letters upon which the chief charge
is sounded, and that his action in tn,
matter was only in accord with previous
presidents in the department which jus
tf!ed him in doing what he did.
With respect to the other persons
charged, I find an outer heel in Or. Keb
Ter and Or. Bigelow which prompted q
dlsingenlous method Of sQuaring Or
Rusbv's desire for what he thought wa:
adequate compensation with the contrac
which YOU and DIR. Wiley were willing I,
make with him and that for this Or. Keh
Ter and DIR. Bigelow should be repr
marded by you. SO far as DR. Rusty Il
t concerned with respect to this particu
lar contract l do not find him at fault
For purposes of punishment or dismissal
| cannot charge him with knowledg
r Of the legal difficulties involved in HI
employment.
, examined the iScord In this case
; number of weeks Aso and reported III
conclusions which have stated here; bu
) meantime, p committee of the House q
Representatives deemed II proper TO in
| stitute an investigation into the depart