The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-09-16
A hat specialty-jeunty hats
for young women.
ASK to see them.

been the case generally in lie Agricul-
tural Department that such an en-
ployment at an annual salary might be
entered into with experts Of this kind.
and only subject the experts to an
ligation to work for the department
whenever called upon. With the Under
standing that they had some other vo-
cation. to which their chief attention
was given, it clearly ~reconciled the ac-
ton of DR.. Wiley with q desire to COM
ply with the law.
Might Have Been Different,
The recommendation OF the Attor-
ney-General gwen to me was upon
only part of the evidence, and hence
his Judgment was different. doubtless.
from what It would have been If ne
had had the whole record before him.
as l have now.
1T seems fairly clear that DR.. Wiley.
after an examination of the records.
concluded that the employment of DR..
Rusby at 50 a day for laboratory work
and 500 q day for court work. would
amount to $1,000 q year If the depart
ment called on him whenever they
needed him, and that 1t was this ar
rangement to which you consented.
IN DR.. Kebler's anxiety to induce DR..
h"spE 10 accept the new terms of
employment. he certainly BETRAYED n
Willingness to construe the contract
OF employment of DIR. Rusty at $1,000
n year In one way to reconcile 1t with
the law. and In another way to sat
lsfy DR.. Rusby in his wish to secure
s2c a day. and think he ought tn
be reprimanded for his dlsingenuous
conduct in writing such letters as he
dio. The language of his letters does
not have n commendable tone and
suggests a willingness to resort to
evasion, that calls for Official reproor.
In respect to DR.. Rusby I do not
mo tnat he was advised at all as TO
the lesai difhculty. and that he was
only seeking for additional compen-
sation which he thought to be ade-
quate.
The truth is. the limitations unon
the bureau chiefs and heads of de-
partinents to exact per diem com
pensations for the employment of ex-
perts in such cases as this is a doubt
rul legislative policy.
III this We're a knowing. wilful. de-
lloerate EFFORT to evade the statute rs
construed by tho Attorney-General. ac-
companied by a scheme to conceal the
evasion and violation, I should think
the punishment was mona
100 great; but an examination Of the
whole case satisfies me that a dir-
tefent construction ought to be put
upon what was done; that the evil
dence does not show that DR.. WILEY
was a party to the ~orrespondenc or
the letters upon which the chief charge
is sounded, and that his action in
the matter was only in accord with
previous precedents in the departments
which Justified hirl In. doing what he
did. ~ he
They Were overxealous.
With respect to the other nereons
charged, l find an overzeal in NJ
heoler and DR.. Bigelow. which PROMPT
eo a disingenuous method of sauarfnr
Dr. Rusby's desire for what he
thought was adequate ~pensa
win the contract which you and DR.
Wiley were willing to make WITH him
and that for this DR.. Kebler and"Dn
Bigelow should be reprfmanded bv von
! examined the record In this casa q
number of weeks ago and reachea Tho
conclusion which I have stated here.
put meantime. n committee Of the
Rouse OF Representatives deemed ~
proper To institute an Investigation
ih'o the Department of Agriculture
anu especially into the Bureau of
Chemistry and It's relation Ia the AZ
partment generally.
~ seemed to me under these ON.
ai'ions that perhaps 1t was wiser for
me TO delay until the INVESTIGATES
"Rs completed and the report ~ tha
committee made. The committees has
not made a report. although 7 ha-
ileve the evidence has been substan.
TALLY closed, and Will not do so untr,
the next session of Congress. Furtber
Consideration satisfies me TINT there
are very much broader questions IN
vowed in the Investigation and tho
evidence there brought out than in tho
present charge, which is narrow ana
uehhlte and can now be properly dis
posed OF. The broader issues ratsed
pE the investigation. which have n
much weightier relation than this ona
TO the general efficiency of the do
partnent' may require much more rad
ical action thai the question I have
here considered and decided
There is another charge aeairet
! Dr.. Rusty for securing the appoint
hlent' on the common laborers' rolls
OF a physician and expert WHOM, he
could use 10 do HE work at a very
I small STIPEND when he himself was
ea!ied away in other employment.
: ] regret to say that the arrange
'Heht which DR.. Rusty thus made Is
not especially ~creditable 10 him mud
snakes in some degree ones CONF
aehce IN his avowed wish to make
personal peeuatary sacrifice in Ibo
: pu"hc interest for the enforcement M
'hc pure food law But Or. Rusby'4
p'sihon as an expert OF high STANDING
~ such mat do not think that anv
a more than this expression of opfnfon
should be Imposed as penalty. My
. information Is that the rovernment