New-York tribune., 1918-05-29
Accused Health Official
Will Not Be Allowed
Counsel
Gets Copy of Charges
Must Be Prepared to De-
fend Himself on
June 3

Specifications on which the charges
a, neglect Of duty, inefhciency and in
.omnetency" against DR.. Lucius P.
Brown are based were made public
Yesterday by the Health Department.
They are contained in a summons to
the head of the Bureau of Foods and
Drugs to appear at the Offices Of the
poard OF Health on June 3 to defend
himself against them.
Dr. Brown will not have formal
trial. Corporation Counsel Burr in a
letter to Health Commissioner Cope
land, which accompanied the charges,
advised that said employe is neither
entitled to hearing conducted as a
proceeding in the nature of a trial, nor
"a be sworn or to Sntroduce witnesses
in support of his explanation nor to be
represented before the board by coun-
sell" DR.. Copeland will follow this
suggestion.
There are four separate counts in
the charges against DR.. Brown. These
assert:
Charges Against DR.. Brown
!. That he neglected to recon-
mend the adoption of food stand
ards and enactment of amendments
OF the sanitary code necessary for
the proper regulation of the sale of
food.
2. That he neglected to supervise
his bureau properly and did not
make changes necessary for its ef-
fcient administration.
8. That he delegated to subordi-
mates powers that he should have
welded himself.
4. That he employed part of the
time that by right belonged to the
city "in personal and private mat
ters"
The summons then takes up specific
instances. Concerning DR.. Browns al
legged neglect of proper food regula-
tions, it asserts that in July, 1915, the
then Commissioner OF Health asked him
to prepare & food code for the city.
1t asserts that he never prepared such
q code, as a result Of which the sale
Of inferior food products fiourished
Il also says that in February, 1918, he
supported an act under consideration
by the Assembly to amend the agri-
cultural law of the state, which, "had
it become law, would have legahzed
the adulteration Of milk, prohibited
under the existing statute law of the
state"
Concerning Dr.: Browns delegation
Of authority to his subordinates the
summons say that he did not exercise
"a proper and effective supervision"
over the division of food inspection,
the division of milk inspection, the di-
vision of drug inspection, the division
Of meat inspection, the clerical division
and the chemical laboratory division
By this laxity, it is said. he delegated
to subordinates determination of
questions of policy and administra-
ton" which it was his duty to Eek
anime into and determine"
1t is also charged that DR.. Brown
neglected to reorganlZe the labora-
tories under his charge and apportion
the work so that it could be accom-
plished most efficiently.
Concerning neglect of his work in the
bureau the summons charges that he
attended only two Of the twenty-five
meetings of the Board of Promotions
and Discipline of the department of
which he was member. 1t also
charges that he attended only three
OF the twelve meetings of the commit
tee on control of health centres, Of
which he was part. 1t likewise cites
the fact that he was absent from his
work seventy-three out of $50 working
days delivering lectures and attending
conferences elsewhere.
In addition, DR.. Brown is accused Of
informing an inspector at the johnson
Avenue slaughter houses in Brooklyn
Of an impending investigation by the
then Commissioner of Accounts, Leon
apd M nf af1Iy
barrassing the progress and imperilllng
the success of the investigation.
DR.. Browns Statement
DR.. Brown last night made the fol-
lowing statement:
"The charges under which I have
been relieved Of duty were received
by me this afternoon. I have read
them over and am struck by the fact
that the accusations contained in the
public letter of Civil Service Commits
sioner MacBride Of April 80, addressed
to the Commi 5sioner of Health, which
letter was the basis of the action by
which I was relieved from duty, are
not contained in the charges actually
hled against me, except in one particu-
lar--namely. the statement that fa-
vored the Wicks bill, which allowed
the Standardization of the quality Of
milk.
THE averments of Commissioner
MacBride that had favored the Bor-
den Milk Company, that I had opposed
the investigation of the Health De-
partment to expose an alleged corrupt
ring IN the Bureau of Food and Drugs
ana that I had favored the house OF
scnsenelin & Co., have. apparently been
round TO be baseless and are not in
cluded in the charges.
me charges actually served upon
me relate. with the above exception to
my administration of nv bureau. I
nave an ahsninta and aopa.la4a ,e.ra,,