Am.  Jour.  Phann. "( 
October,  1911.  / 
President  Taffs  Action. 
497 
employes  in  that  department  who  are  under  an  annual  salary  labor 
amounting  to  seven  hours  a  day. 
"  An  examination  of  the  records  satisfied  me  that  the  questions 
had  not  been  presented  to  the  persons  involved  in  such  a  way  as 
to  enable  them  to  make  full  defense.  They  had  only  been  called  as 
witnesses,  and  cross-examined  without  a  full  understanding  that 
they  were  under  trial  which  might  involve  their  dismissal.  Accord- 
ingly I  directed  you  to  submit  the  whole  record  to  each  one  of  the 
persons  charged  and  invite  from  him  an  answer. 
"  The  answer  of  Doctor  Wiley  specifically  denies  that  he  evef 
saw  the  correspondence  between  Doctor  Kebler  and  Doctor  Rusby 
or  that  he  ever  consciously  entered  into  an  agreement  by  which 
Doctor  Rusby  was  in  effect  to  receive  compensation  at  a  rate  in 
excess  of  that  prescribed  by  the  statute  as  interpreted  by  the  Attor- 
ney-General. 
"  The  truth  is,  it  appears  from  the  answers  of  Doctor  Wiley, 
Doctor  Kebler  and  Doctor  Bigelow  that  there  had  been  a  good  many 
precedents  in  the  department  which  seemed  to  justify  the  employ- 
ment of  Doctor  Rusby  at  an  annual  salary  when  it  was  not  expected 
that  his  entire  time  would  be  taken  up.  This  was  the  case  with 
respect  to  the  employment  of  what  was  known  as  the  Remsen 
Board. 
"  Solicitor  McCabe,  to  whom  I  referred  the  question  of  prece- 
dents made  in  the  case,  replied  that  in  the  practice  of  the  depart- 
ment the  clause  in  the  appropriation  act  of  March  5,  1898,  had  been 
held  to  have  no  application  to  the  employment  of  experts  outside  of 
Washington. 
"  It  is  necessary  fully  to  understand  this  difiference  between  the 
attitude  of  the  department  toward  an  employment  at  an  annual 
salary  of  this  kind,  and  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General  in  this 
matter,  because  if  Doctor  Wiley  and  his  associates  had  understood 
that  the  $i6oo  annual  salary  required  them  to  exact  from  Doctor 
Rusby  seven  hours  a  day  for  all  the  work  days  of  the  year,  then,  of 
course,  his  employment  must  have  been  known  by  them  to  be  illegal 
and  under  the  circumstances,  to  be  only  a  cover  for  a  difiPerent  con- 
tract of  employment ;  but  if  they  understood,  as  seems  to  have  been 
the  case  generally  in  the  department,  that  such  an  employment  at 
an  annual  salary  might  be  entered  into  with  experts  of  this  kind, 
and  only  subject  the  experts  to  an  obligation  to  work  for  the  depart- 
ment whenever  called  upon,  with  the  understanding  that  they  had 
