498 
President  Toft's  Action. 
r  Am.  Jonr.  Phartn. 
\     October,  1911. 
some  other  vocation  to  which  their  chief  attention  was  given,  it 
clearly  reconciled  the  action  of  Doctor  Wiley  with  a  desire  to  comply 
with  the  law. 
"  The  recommendation  of  the  Attorney-General  given  to  me 
was  upon  only  part  of  the  evidence,  and  hence  his  judgment  was 
different,  doubtless,  from  what  it  would  have  been  if  he  had  had 
the  whole  record  before  him,  as  I  have  now. 
"  It  seems  fairly  clear  that  Doctor  Wiley,  after  an  examination 
of  the  records,  concluded,  that  the  employment  of  Doctor  Rusby  at 
$9  a  day  for  laboratory  work  and  $50  a  day  for  court  work  would 
amount  to  $1600  a  year  if  the  department  called  on  him  whenever 
they  needed  him,  and  that  it  was  this  arrangement  to  which  you 
consented.  In  Doctor  Kebler's  anxiety  to  induce  Doctor  Rusby  to 
accept  the  new  terms  of  employment  he  certainly  betrayed  a  willing- 
ness to  construe  the  contract  of  employment  of  Doctor  Rusby  at 
$1600  a  year  in  one  way  to  reconcile  it  with  the  law  and  in  another 
way  to  satisfy  Doctor  Rusby  in  his  wish  to  secure  $20  a  day,  and  I 
think  he  ought  to  be  reprimanded  for  his  disingenuous  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  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. 
"  Here  is  the  pure  food  act  which  is  of  the  highest  importance 
to  enforce,  and  in  respect  to  which  the  interests  opposed  to  its 
enforcement  are  likely  to  have  all  the  money  at  their  command 
needed  to  secure  the  most  effective  expert  evidence.  The  Govern- 
ment ought  not  to  be  at  a  disadvantage  in  this  regard  and  one 
cannot  withhold  one's  sympathy  with  an  earnest  effort  by  Doctor 
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  importance  to  the 
public.  ;  -iM  'I 
"  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  sliould  think  the  pun- 
ishment 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 
