370 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIV. No. 873 



he had had the whole record before him, as I 

 have now. It seems fairly clear that Dr. 

 Wiley, after an examination of the records 

 concluded that the employment of Dr. Eusby 

 at $9 a day for laboratory work and $50 a 

 day for court work would amount to $1,600 a 

 year if the department called on him when- 

 ever they needed him, and that it was this ar- 

 rangement to which you consented. In Dr. 

 Kebler's anxiety to induce Dr. Eusby to ac- 

 cept the new terms of employment he cer- 

 tainly betrayed a willingness to construe the 

 contract of employment of Dr. Eusby at 

 $1,600 a year in one way to reconcile it with 

 the law, and in another way to satisfy Dr. 

 Eusby in his wish to secure $20 a day, and I 

 think he ought to be reprimanded for his dis- 

 ingenuous conduct in writing such letters as 

 he did. He said that he did not intend to 

 violate the statute as interpreted by the At- 

 torney-General, and indeed that he did not 

 know exactly what the ruling was; but 

 whether he did or not, the language of his 

 letters does not have a commendable tone and 

 suggests a willingness to resort to evasion that 

 calls for official reproof. 



In respect to Dr. Eusby I do not find that 

 he was advised at all as to the legal difficulty, 

 and that he was only seeking for additional 

 compensation which he thought to be ade- 

 quate. 



The truth is, the limitations upon bureau 

 chiefs and heads of departments to exact per 

 diem compensations for the employment of 

 experts in such cases as this is a doubtful 

 legislative policy. Here is the pure food act, 

 which it is of the highest importance to en- 

 force and in respect to which the interests op- 

 posed to its enforcement are likely to have all 

 the money at their command needed to secure 

 the most effective expert evidence. The gov- 

 ernment ought not to be at a disadvantage in 

 this regard, and one can not withhold one's 

 sympathy with an earnest effort by Dr. Wiley 

 to pay proper compensation and secure expert 

 assistance in the enforcement of so important 

 a statute, certainly in the beginning when the 



questions arising under it are of capital im- 

 portance to the public. 



If this were a knowing, wilful, deliberate 

 effort to evade the statute as construed by the 

 Attorney General, accompanied by a scheme 

 to conceal the evasion and violation, I should 

 think the punishment recommended by the 

 personnel board, and concurred in by the 

 Attorney-General, was none too great; but an 

 examination of the whole case satisfies me 

 that a different construction ought to be put 

 upon what was done; that the evidence does 

 not show that Dr. Wiley was a party to the 

 correspondence or the letters upon which the 

 chief charge is founded, and that his action 

 in the matter was only in accord with previous 

 precedents in the department which justified 

 him in doing what he did. 



With respect to the other persons charged, 

 I find an overzeal in Dr. Kebler and Dr. Bige- 

 low which prompted a disingenuous method 

 of squaring Dr. Eusby's desire for what he 

 thought was adequate compensation with the 

 contract which you and Dr. Wiley were will- 

 ing to make with him and that for this Dr. 

 Kebler and Dr. Bigelow should be repri- 

 manded by you. So far as Dr. Eusby is con- 

 cerned, with respect to this particular con- 

 tract, I do not find him at fault. For pur- 

 poses of punishment or dismissal, I can not 

 charge him with knowledge of the legal diffi- 

 culties involved in his employment. 



I examined the record in this case a num- 

 ber of weeks ago and reached the conclusion 

 which I have stated here; but meantime, a 

 committee of the House of Eepresentatives 

 deemed it proper to institute an investigation 

 into the Department of Agriculture, and espe- 

 cially into the Bureau of Chemistry and its 

 relation to the department generally. 



It seemed to me under these conditions that 

 perhaps it was wiser for me to delay until the 

 investigation was completed and the report of 

 the committee made. The committee has not 

 made a report, although I believe the evidence 

 has been substantially closed, and will not do 

 so until the next session of congress. 

 Further consideration satisfies me that there 



