PROGRAMME (continued 2)

The fact that the awards were being advertised broadcast in this manner before they had been approved by the Commission was called to the attention of President Francis by Mr. Allen, acting president, by a letter under date of November 4, as follows:

NOVEMBER 4, 1904.

SIR: If the inclosed advertisement is published by authority of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, it seems to be directly in conflict with the understanding had with the National Commission that before awards be announced officially they were to be submitted to the National Commission for approval. This advertisement purports to be by authority of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, signed by David R. Francis, president, and F.J.V. Skiff, director of exhibits. No final action on awards by the superior jury have been submitted to the National Commission, but nearly all the exhibitors in the exhibit buildings are advertising what purports to be the official awards.

We most earnestly submit that this action on the part of the exhibitors is in direct conflict with the law and with the agreement had with you by the National Commission, and if it is being done with the approval of your company, we desire again to protest against it. We understood after our demand for arbitration on the construction of the law as to the right of the National Commission to approve or disapprove of awards, that your company agreed to our contention, and that these awards were to be submitted to us before being published. If your understanding does not accord with ours, we again ask for arbitration. If it does accord with ours, we insist that the spirit of this agreement be adhered to.

Very respectfully,

JOHN M. ALLEN, Acting President.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS, President Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, Administration Building.

The following communication was received from President Francis, in reply to Mr. Allen's letter:

NOVEMBER 4, 1904.

DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of contents of your letter of this date concerning the advertisement of the Brown Shoe Company of their awards. It surprised me as much as it did you. I have instituted inquiries, and as soon as I ascertain by whose authority the announcement was put in the papers, I shall advise you. Of course you know that the exposition authorities had no knowledge of such an advertisement until it was given to the public. These ribbons are sold by a concessionaire, who was instructed weeks ago to sell none of them until the awards are officially announced.

Very truly, yours,

D.R. FRANCIS, President.

Hon. J.M. ALLEN, Acting President National Commission, St. Louis, Mo.

Shortly after the receipt of the foregoing letter from President Francis another letter bearing the same matter was delivered to the Commission, as follows:

NOVEMBER 4, 1904.

DEAR SIR: Since writing you a hurried note this morning, I have read your letter more carefully, and desire to state in addition that, referring to that portion of your letter relating to what you term an "agreement" between this company and the National Commission that no award can be made without being approved by the Commission, I beg to say I am not advised of such an agreement or understanding having been made. It was our understanding that, before official notification to exhibitors, a list of the awards made by the superior jury would be furnished by the secretary of said jury to the Commission and also to this company for their information and for the purpose of giving to the Commission and to this company an opportunity to call the attention of the jury (or the committee of five now acting as such) to any errors which the Commission or this company might discover, so that the same might be considered and corrected before giving official notification to the exhibitors. My understanding is that the committee of five are sending these lists as fast as its clerical force can make them out.

Yours, truly,

D.R. FRANCIS, President.

Hon. JOHN M. ALLEN, Acting President National Commission.

On November 5, Mr. Allen addressed another communication to President Francis, as follows:

NOVEMBER 5, 1904.

SIR: The National Commission is in receipt of your two letters of the 4th instant, in reply to one of same date sent to you. The first of the two letters recognizes our contention. Your second letter is one of the most surprising communications we have ever had from the local company. You seem to have mended your hold after your first letter of the 4th instant and for some reason repudiated what Mr. Miller, Mr. Betts, and the writer clearly understood to be an acquiescence in and an agreement to the contentions as to the rights of the National Commission contained in our letter to you of October 18. We inclose herewith a copy of said letter of the 18th instant for the purpose of refreshing your memory without the necessity of looking it up.

You will see that in that letter we defined the contention of the National Commission as to its right to approve or disapprove of the awards of the juries, and it concludes with a demand for arbitration unless this right is conceded by your company.

You will remember that instead of answering this letter you invited Mr. Betts and the writer into your office, where we sent for Mr. Miller, to discuss this question. You should remember that when you broached this subject the writer said to you, "We are not looking for work, nor are we looking for trouble, but we think Congress has imposed this duty of approving and disapproving these awards on us, and we will not shirk it." There was considerable discussion in your office that day, but no intimation from you or anyone else that there was still opposition to our contention. You went on to say that the lists that you were getting out were not official in any sense and would not be until we said so.

You will recall that this interview between us was at your suggestion and intended, we supposed, as an answer to our communication of the 18th of October, in which we had demanded arbitration on this very question. You say in your second letter of the 4th instant that "It was our understanding that before official notification to exhibitors a list of awards of the superior jury would be furnished by the secretary of said jury to the Commission and also to this company for their information and for the purpose of giving the Commission and this company an opportunity to call the attention of the jury, or the committee of five now acting as such, to any errors which the Commission or this company might discover, so that the same might be considered and corrected before giving official notification to the exhibitors." We can not understand where you could have gotten that understanding. I know that there was nothing said about the National Commission having a list submitted to it for any other purpose than the purpose of approval or disapproval. We never asked for a list for information, nor was anything ever said about referring anything back to the committee of five. What was ever said by the members of the National Commission then present to indicate to you that we withdrew or abandoned our demand for arbitration if the right of approval or disapproval was not accorded the National Commission? And if nothing was said by us evidencing such an abandonment of the demand, what answer have you ever made to such a demand? If your conversation with the members of the National Commission in your office that day was not intended to make the impression on them that you assented to sending the awards to the National Commission for approval or disapproval, it was as misleading a conversation as I ever listened to, and both the other gentlemen of the National Commission who were present agree with me in this view.

Right here let me suggest that in the future our written communications be answered in writing. We will then at least have a record in writing.

We reiterate that we are not looking for trouble or work, but as the representatives of the Federal Government we do not propose, if we can prevent it, to acquiesce in having the awards of this exposition promulgated without our approval when we think the law devolves this duty upon us. If your second letter of the 4th instant, in which you state your understanding, is the course your company proposes to take about this matter, we reiterate our demand for arbitration as contained in our letter of October 18. We suppose it will not be contended that we have lost the right of arbitration. We insist that there be no official promulgation of the action of the superior jury until such arbitration shall have been concluded.

Awaiting your early reply, Very respectfully,

JOHN M. ALLEN, Acting President.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS, President Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, Administration Building.

Under date of November 8, President Francis replied to the foregoing letter as follows:

NOVEMBER 8, 1904.

DEAR SIR: Your communication of Saturday, November 5, was not read by me until yesterday, Monday, November 7, and was submitted to the executive committee to-day. I can not say whether the tone and spirit of the letter, or the statement that you misunderstood the position of the Exposition Company, was the more surprising. I desire to state emphatically that at no time have I ever told you or said anything that would justify you in believing that the Exposition Company accepted the contention that the National Commission has the right to approve or disapprove the awards of the superior jury before they are final. It is true I did invite you into my office after the receipt of your letter of October 18, and also true that I stated to you I regretted the view taken by the National Commission of its prerogatives or its duty, but none the less true that I also said that, inasmuch as the rules governing the system of awards had been promulgated and acted upon after approval by the Exhibition Company and the National Commission, that neither the Exposition Company nor the National Commission has the right to review the awards or overturn them. I did state that no official announcement of awards would be made until the Exposition Company and the National Commission should be advised of what they were, to the end that, if there had been any irregularity in the awarding, any errors or omissions, or any fraud, the same might be corrected; but at no time have I ever said anything that would justify you or anyone else in the conclusion that either the Exposition Company or the National Commission had the right to review the action of the superior jury with the power to overturn the awards on the ground that they were not justly made on the merits of the exhibits. It was certainly my understanding when we parted after the conference in my office that the situation was clear to you, and I have a distinct recollection, as does Judge Ferriss, who was present at the conference, that Mr. Betts accepted the situation. You offered no definite objection, but did state in an interrogatory tone that you were not yet ready to relinquish the right of the National Commission to approve the awards. I have had no conversation with you since that date on the subject, but Judge Boyle tells me that in conversation with Mr. Betts on the subject, after the interview in my office, he told Mr. Betts that the superior jury was progressing with its work and had no objection to any member or members of the National Commission being present at its sessions; and further, that as fast as the work progressed the results would be informally communicated to the National Commission, so that if the Commission should find any errors it could call the committee's attention to same, so that corrections could be made before an official announcement of awards. His impression, from the conversation with Mr. Betts, was that this arrangement was entirely satisfactory to the Commission, and would obviate any further controversy as to the right of the Commission to approve or disapprove the awards before they became final.

I therefore not only deny any intention to mislead you or the National Commission concerning the position of the superior jury and the Exposition Company, but state emphatically that I have said nothing that justifies any belief or impression on the part of anyone that either the superior jury or the Exposition Company admitted the contention of the National Commission that it had the right to approve or disapprove awards finally made by the superior jury in pursuance of the rules and regulations adopted by this company and approved by the Commission.

I made two replies to your letter of November 4, and my reason for doing so was explained in the second letter. My first letter was dictated immediately on receipt and on a cursory reading of your communication inclosing the advertisement of an award in the morning papers of November 4, and was hurriedly made through earnest consideration for and extreme courtesy toward the National Commission. It merely advised that I was investigating the advertisement and would report as soon as I could learn upon what authority of the Exposition Company or superior jury, if any, it had been inserted in the daily papers. Upon a rereading of your letter and a reference of same to members of the superior jury, my attention was called to the fact that a failure to reply to that portion of your letter claiming the right of the National Commission to approve or disapprove awards made on their merits might be construed as an acknowledgment of such contention, whereupon I sent to you the second communication. Until the receipt of your letter of the 5th, I was under the impression that the situation as it exists was accepted by the National Commission, as it has been by the Exposition Company.

I note the request in your letter "that in future our (your) written communications be answered in writing," and it will be complied with. Furthermore, if this request is made by authority of the National Commission, as such, I desire that all communications of the National Commission to the Exposition Company shall hereafter be in writing.

As to your request for an arbitration, if you still insist on having it the Exposition Company will interpose no obstacle.

In this connection, I desire to inform you that the diplomas or certificates of award provided for in the rules and regulations are being engraved, and the facsimile signatures of the president, secretary, and director of exhibits of the Exposition Company, and of the president of the National Commission placed thereon. If the National Commission is unwilling to have the name of its president engraved on these diplomas until or unless the awards are approved by the National Commission, the fact should be made known at the earliest possible moment, so that there may be no unnecessary expense incurred.

This letter has been submitted to the executive committee of the Exposition Company and has been approved by it.

Yours truly

P.R. FRANCIS, President.

Hon. JOHN M. ALLEN, Acting President National Commission, Administration Building.

Informal conferences were held with the exposition officials from time to time, but no agreement was reached, and on November 11 the Commission submitted the following draft of suggestions to the Exposition Company for the finding of the board of arbitration:

First. The awards as made by the superior jury are final and binding upon the Exposition Company and the National Commission, unless the same are impeached for fraud, or unless misconduct amounting to fraud is proven.

Second. The lists of awards as made by the superior jury are to be transmitted to the Exposition Company, and certificates of awards shall be authorized by said company, and thereafter said lists are to be transmitted to the National Commission and certificates of award authorized by said Commission, all without further question or investigation, unless the said awards are impeached for fraud or misconduct, as hereinbefore stated.

Third. No complaint or protest as to any of said awards will be received or considered, either by the Exposition Company or the National Commission, unless the same is made in writing over the signature of some competing exhibitor and substantiated by affidavit or other sworn testimony establishing a prima facie case of such fraud or misconduct in procuring or making of said award.

The arbitration committee of the Exposition Company replied to the foregoing propositions as follows:

NOVEMBER 11, 1904.

DEAR SIR: After consulting Judge Boyle I find that the suggestions you have presented for a finding by the board of arbitration will be acceptable to both of us if the following amendments are made:

First. Change in the first clause, so as to read as follows:

"The awards as made by the superior jury are final and binding upon the Exposition Company and the National Commission, except as to any award or awards which are impeached by said company or Commission for fraudulent conduct on the part of said jury in making the awards."

Second. Omit entirely the third clause.

We are of the opinion that ample provision is made in the rules and regulations for having any fraud or fraudulent conduct on the part of any subordinate jury or juror fully considered and determined by appeal to the superior jury, and that no further precaution or provision is needed unless the conduct of the superior jury is shown to have been fraudulent.

Our purpose in striking out the third clause is that a charge of fraud against the superior jury should be made only when supported with the character and dignity pertaining to the Exposition Company or the National Commission, and that the provision made in the third clause for affidavits is wholly unnecessary because the charge would not be made by either of those bodies except upon such evidence as they would be satisfied warranted making the charge.

Yours, very truly,

CHAS. W. KNAPP, Member Board of Arbitration.

Hon. JOHN M. THURSTON, Member Arbitration Board, National Commission.

On November 12, 1904, the Commission addressed the following communication to the President of the Exposition Company, forbidding the use of the signature of the president of the Commission to any certificate of award until the matter at issue was determined.

NOVEMBER 12, 1904.

SIR: Your letter of November 8 received and contents noted. The statements contained therein as to what occurred in your office on the 19th of October in your interview with Mr. Betts, Mr. Miller, and the writer do not accord with the distinct recollection or understanding of any of the three parties mentioned.

I am glad to know that our communications will hereafter be in writing, that these misunderstandings may be avoided. The National Commission is in entire accord with this position, and we will try and observe our part of this understanding.

The informal conferences between the members of the National Commission and representatives of your company seem to have resulted in no definite understanding, and the Commission therefore insists that arbitration be had to determine the true effect and meaning of section 6 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1901, as affecting the rights and duties of the National Commission to approve or not approve the awards.

In the meantime and until this question is determined the Commission can not authorize the use of its president's signature on any certificate of award.

In any arrangement preliminary to the settlement of this controversy the writer will be pleased to confer with your arbitration committee at any time.

Very respectfully,

JOHN M. ALLEN, Acting President.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS, President Exposition Company, Building.

After many futile efforts to reach an agreement as to the subject-matter to be submitted for arbitration, it became obvious to the Commission that it was the intention of the Exposition Company to ignore the right of the Commission to finally consider or approve the awards of the superior jury. Under these circumstances the president of the Commission was directed, on November 22, 1904, by resolution, to forward to the president of the Exposition Company a communication summing up the controversy and stating clearly the stand taken by the Commission.

The communication is as follows:

St. Louis, November 22, 1904.

Sir: To the end that an understanding may be reached as to issues involved in correspondence between your company and the National Commission, extending from the month of May, 1904, almost to the present date, relative to the appointment of jurors and the awarding of premiums, it appears desirable and necessary that the law and the facts be briefly stated and the relative position of your company and the Commission clearly defined.

In so far as applicable to the subjects referred to, section 6 of the act of Congress making an appropriation for the exposition, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1901, reads as follows:

"That the allotment of space for exhibitors, classification of exhibits, plan and scope of the exposition, the appointment of all judges and examiners for the exposition, and the awarding of premiums, if any, shall all be done and performed by the said Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, subject, however, to the approval of the Commission created by section two of this act."

Under and in conformity with the provisions of law above cited, certain general and special rules and regulations providing for an international jury and governing the system of making awards were submitted by the company and approved by the Commission in the year 1903.

The general rules applicable read as follows:

ARTICLE XXII.

AWARDS.

SECTION 1. The system of awards will be competitive. The merit of exhibits as determined by the jury of awards will be manifested by the issuance of diplomas, which will be divided into four classes—a grand prize, a gold medal, a silver medal, and a bronze medal.

SEC. 2. No exhibit can be excluded from competition for award without the consent of the president of the Exposition Company after a review of the reasons or motives by competent authorities hereafter to be provided.

SEC. 3. In a fixed ratio to the number of exhibits, but reserving to the citizens of the United States approximately 60 per cent of the jury membership, the construction of the international jury will be based upon a predetermined number of judges allotted to each group of the classification and upon the number and importance of the exhibits in such group.

SEC. 4. A chairman of the group jury will be elected by his colleagues in each group, this chairman to become, by right of his position, a member of the department jury, which department jury shall in turn elect its chairman, who shall thereupon become a member of the superior jury.

SEC. 5. Special rules and regulations governing the system of making awards and determining the extent to which foreign countries may have representation on the juries, will be hereafter promulgated.

SEC. 6. Allotment of space for exhibitors, the classification of exhibits, the appointment of all judges and examiners for the exposition, and the awarding of premiums, if any, shall be done and performed by the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, subject, however, to the approval of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission.

The special rules provide for the appointment of three graded juries, designated as, first, the general organization of group juries; second, department juries, and, third, the superior jury.

At the conclusion of the recital of the manner of selecting the jurors a paragraph in section 3 of the rules provides that "all the above nominations shall be made not later than August 1, 1904, except that nominations made to fill vacancies may be made at any subsequent time."

In conclusion, the section last referred to reads as follows:

"The nominations of group jurors and alternates, when approved by the president of the exposition, shall be transmitted to the president of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission for approval of that body.

"These nominations having been considered and confirmed by the authorities as provided by section 6 of the act of Congress relating to the approval of the awarding of premiums, the appointment of the international jury shall be made in accordance with section 6 of Article XXII of the official rules and regulations of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company."

Section 6 of the aforesaid special rules provides that—

"The work of the group juries shall begin September 1, 1904, and shall be completed not later than twenty days thereafter."

Section 15 of the special rules and regulations provides that—

"The superior jury shall determine finally and fully the awards to be made to exhibitors and collaborators in all cases that are formally presented for its consideration."

Section 16 of the special rules and regulations provides that—

"The work of the superior jury shall be completed on October 15, 1904, and, as soon as practicable thereafter, formal public announcement of the awards shall be made. A final complete list of awards shall be published by the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the act of Congress, and section 6, Article XXII, of the rules and regulations."

Sec. 27 of the special rules and regulations provides that—

"The diplomas or certificates of award for exhibitors shall be signed by the president of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, the president of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission, the secretary of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, the director of exhibits, and the chief of the department to which the exhibit pertains."

The foregoing rules clearly required the submission of the names of all proposed jurors to the Commission for its approval or disapproval prior to August 1, 1904, except as to nominations to fill vacancies.

Realizing the necessity for the exercise of great care on the part of the Commission in the discharge of its duties in the premises, and the necessity for ample time for investigation as to the fitness of persons and their willingness to serve as jurors of awards, the Commission addressed you a letter under date of May 18, 1904, reading as follows:

"SIR: Inasmuch as objections may be urged to the appointment of certain persons upon juries of awards, it is the intention of the National Commission to give public notice, allowing reasonable time for the filing of any objections that may be offered to the appointment of any individual on a jury. As this proceeding will necessarily consume time, it is desirable that the names of persons proposed for the respective juries be transmitted to the Commission from time to time, as the respective groups are completed by the company. It is believed that final action can be reached in a more orderly and satisfactory manner by taking up the names proposed for each jury separately rather than to have the entire membership of all the juries submitted for consideration simultaneously.

Yours, very respectfully,

THOS. H. CARTER, President."

Our files do not show any recognition of this communication by your company. A short time thereafter the Commission was unofficially advised that certain jurors had been selected by the company and were actually exercising the functions of judges and examiners without notice to or approval by the Commission, and on the 23d of May, 1905, this fact was duly called to your attention by letter. Some time later the director of exhibits appeared before the Commission and admitted that certain examiners and jurors had been selected, without reference to the Commission, to pass upon exhibits of a perishable character. In three communications, each bearing the date of June 3, 1904, you transmitted the names of the jurors referred to, and in the light of the explanations made by the director of exhibits and in your communications, the Commission, with many misgivings as to the regularity of the proceedings and solely to avoid embarrassment to the exhibitors and to the company, approved the names submitted as of the date of their selection by the company.

Aside from the few jurors thus irregularly selected for emergency work, no jurors were nominated or submitted to the Commission as required by the rules and regulations prior to August 1.

The first list of group jurors was transmitted in your communication bearing date of August 10, delivered to the Commission about August 15, and the last list was transmitted to this Commission on October 27.

The respective dates of your letter transmitting nominations of group jurors and the respective dates of the receipt of the same by the Commission are as follows:

———————————————|——————|——————- | | | Date of | Date same | letters of | letters | Exposition | received | Company. | by National | | Commission. ———————————————|——————|——————- Department. | | | | Education and Social Economy | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 | Sept. 6 | Oct. 3 Art Department | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 | Aug. 23 | Aug. 26 | Aug. 26 | Aug. 28 | Aug. 27 | Aug. 29 Liberal Arts | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 Manufactures | Aug. 25 | Aug. 29 Machinery | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 | Aug. 16 | Aug. 20 | Corrected list | Oct. 18. | Sept. 7 | Sept. 10 Electricity | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 | Sept. 9 | Transportation | Aug. 9 | Aug. 15 | Sept. 8 | Oct. 3 Horticulture | June 3 | June 6 | Aug. 18 | Aug. 19 | Aug. 23 | Aug. 24 Agriculture | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 | Aug. 13 | Aug. 22 | Aug. 31 | Sept. 3 | Sept. 2 | Do. Fish and game | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 | do | Sept. 3 Mines and metallurgy | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 | Sept. 6 | Oct. 3 | Sept. 13 | Oct. 27 | Corrected list | Oct. 18. Anthropology | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15 Physical culture | do | Do. Livestock | Aug. 4 | Aug. 19 | Aug. 11 | Aug. 18 | Sept. 1 | Sept. 14 Poultry | Sept. 26 | Oct. 3 Dogs and pigeons | Oct. 17 | Oct. 27 Rabbits | Oct. 22 | Do. | | Country. | | | | Austria | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15 | Sept. 7 | Sept. 12 Argentine | Aug. 23 | Aug. 26 Brazil | Aug. 17 | Aug. 22 | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 Belgium | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15 Bulgaria | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 Ceylon | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15 China | do | Do. | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 Cuba | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15 Egypt | Aug. 14 | Aug. 18 France | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15 | Sept. 1 | Sept. 12 Germany | Aug. 24 | Aug. 26 | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 | Sept. 1 | Sept. 12 | Sept. 4 | Do. Guatemala | do | Do. Great Britain | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18 | Aug. 24 | Aug. 26 | Sept. 1 | Sept. 12 Hungary | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 | Aug. 16 | Sept. 18 Holland | Sept. 8 | Sept. 15 Haiti | do | Sept. 12 India | Aug. 24 | Aug. 26 Italy | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18 | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 | Aug. 26 | Aug. 30 | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 | Sept. 7 | Sept. 12 | Sept. 16 | Sept. 17 Japan | Aug. 23 | Aug. 26 | Sept. 7 | Sept. 8 Monaco | Sept. 2 | Sept. 12 Mexico | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18 | Sept. 6 | Sept. 12 Netherlands | Aug. 23 | Aug. 26 Nicaragua | do | Do. Porto Rico | Aug. 26 | Aug. 30 Portugal | Aug. 24 | Aug. 22 Russia | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 Sweden | Aug. 12 | Aug. 19 | Sept. 3 | Sept. 13 Siam | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18 Venezuela | Aug. 16 | Do. | Sept. 1 | Sept. 2 ———————————————|——————|——————-

On the morning of October 3 thirteen letters of transmittal signed by you, bearing dates between August 31 and September 27, were delivered to the Commission, inclosing twenty nominations to fill vacancies in group juries, and on October 6 the secretary of the superior jury delivered to the Commission what purported to be a corrected list of group jurors who had actually served. Thereafter, in your letters of October 17, 22, and 24, delivered to the Commission on October 27, you transmitted what you assume to be "a roster of those who served as group jurors in the various departments of the exposition."

This last series of names transmitted by you does not agree with the list delivered by the secretary of the superior jury on October 6, but by checking and comparison we find that the several lists delivered to the Commission between October 3 and October 27 show the names of over sixty persons who served as group jurors without having been submitted to the Commission for approval, and these have not been approved. Other names appear on the lists referred to which were originally approved by the Commission for service in one group who were, without notice to the Commission, assigned to service in other groups. Upon this point it is believed by the Commission that the names should have been resubmitted for approval in order to make the appointments valid, it being evident that the Commission might regard a person as a competent judge of live stock, but incompetent to pass upon the merits of a mineral exhibit or of electrical appliances.

It is obvious from the foregoing record that the rules were not observed by the Exposition Company in the nomination of jurors, and it is further clear that through the failure of the company to observe the rules the Commission was in all instances deprived of opportunity to give notice or to take reasonable time to make proper investigation as to the fitness of nominees, and their willingness to serve, and in many cases no opportunity whatever was allowed for the purposes indicated, and, finally, as to a large number of the jurors, the Commission was not advised of their selection until they had exercised their functions and departed from the grounds.

Disregard of the rules and regulations in this behalf not only defeated the purpose of the law in providing for the exercise of the powers of approval or disapproval on the part of the Commission, but left insufficient time for notice to the persons appointed to enable them to appear and discharge their duties within the allotted period, and in consequence a large number of those approved by the Commission on short notice, being unable to appear within the time stated, were set aside by the company and substitutes named, of whose competency the company could not, in the nature of things, be advised, and of whom the Commission had no knowledge whatever.

Notwithstanding the violation of the rules, and manifest irregularity in the formation of the group juries, we understand you to inform us that the power of approval or disapproval of awards vested in the National Commission by section 6 of the act of Congress shall not be exercised as to any award made in connection with the exposition. To the end that there may be no misunderstanding upon this point, the following quotation from your letter to the acting president of the Commission under date of November 8 is incorporated:

"I desire to state emphatically that at no time have I ever told you, or said anything that would justify you in believing, that the Exposition Company accept the contention that the National Commission has the right to approve or disapprove the awards of the superior jury before they are final. * * * That neither the Exposition Company nor the National Commission had the right to review the awards or overturn them."

The Commission understands your contention to be that the judgment of the superior jury is not only final but conclusive, and that the rule under which this contention is made operates to nullify the language of the act of Congress, which provides that "The awarding of premiums, if any, shall be done and performed by said Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, subject to the approval of the Commission created by this act." Even if such construction could be accepted as plausibly tenable, which the Commission denies, it could only be so regarded by virtue of previous conformity to the rules providing for the nomination of jurors by the company and their approval by the Commission. To commit the Commission to the approval of the conclusions reached by jurors, with whose selection they had nothing whatever to do, can not be accepted as even a colorable compliance with the law. The Commission holds that the judgment of the superior jury is final in so far as the juries are concerned, but that above and beyond the superior jury the Exposition Company and the National Commission have certain statutory duties to perform which they could neither delegate nor ignore.

The files of the National Commission are to-day encumbered with complaints and affidavits which amply vindicate the wisdom of the law in providing for final approval of awards before their promulgation. It is not the intention to here assume that any charge of fraud or misconduct on the part of any person connected with the awarding of premiums has been established, but the fact must be stated that reputable persons have filed charges with the Commission in the form of affidavits and otherwise, alleging such grave misconduct on the part of certain persons who acted in connection with the awards as to bring about an unavoidable necessity for a reasonable investigation before final approval is given to the acts of the persons charged with fraud and misconduct.

The value of each award is dependent upon the credit to which the action of the juries, the company, and the Commission may be entitled at every step from the beginning of the examination to the final approval of the award.

At an informal conference in the course of an attempt to reach a basis for action, three members of the Commission suggested to your executive board the propriety of submitting for the approval of the board of arbitration the following:

First. The awards, as made by the superior jury, are final and binding upon the Exposition Company and the National Commission, unless the same are impeached for fraud, or unless misconduct, amounting to fraud, is proved.

Second. The lists of awards, as made by the superior jury, are to be transmitted to the Exposition Company, and certificates of award shall be authorized by said company; and thereafter said lists are to be transmitted to the National Commission and certificates of award authorized by said Commission, all without further question or investigation, unless the said awards are impeached for fraud or misconduct, as hereinbefore stated.

Third. No complaint or protest as to any of said awards will be received or considered either by the Exposition Company or the National Commission unless the same is made in writing over the signature of some competing exhibitor and substantiated by affidavits or other sworn testimony establishing a prima facie case of such fraud or misconduct in procuring or making of said award.

Your representative did not entertain the proposition for arbitration, according to the suggestions submitted, but proposed to change the first clause so as to confine the impeachment of an award or awards to fraudulent conduct on the part of the superior jury, and thus to exclude inquiries concerning fraud, if any, practiced on any jury by successful competitors, or misconduct on the part of individual jurors, or misconduct on the part of any officer or representative of the Exposition Company, amounting to fraudulent influence and affecting the character of an award, or the course of procedure in reference thereto. The representatives of the Exposition Company declined to consider the third clause suggested.

A communication was received from Mr. Knapp, a member of your arbitration board, under date of November 11, submitting amendments to the suggestions transmitted by the Commission under the same date, as follows:

(1) Change in the first clause so as to read as follows:

"The awards as made by the superior jury are final and binding upon the Exposition Company and the National Commission, except as to any award or awards which are impeached by said company or Commission for fraudulent conduct on the part of said jury in making the award."

(2) Omit entirely the third clause.

The restrictions thus sought to be placed upon the investigation of charges of fraud or misconduct as proposed by the amendment were unsatisfactory.

First. Because the impeachment of an award, as construed by your Mr. Knapp's letter, was to be confined exclusively to the company and the Commission, whereas in the judgment of the Commission any party feeling aggrieved, and having knowledge of the fraud or misconduct complained of, should be permitted to come forward with the charges and proofs.

Second. In confining the investigation of alleged fraudulent conduct to the superior jury alone, the proposed amendment would obviously operate to preclude any inquiry into any charge of fraud or misconduct on the part of any group or department jury or jurors, or any person or persons not connected with the juries, who might, through fraud, bribery, or misrepresentation have illegally or wrongfully influenced or procured an award, the facts concerning which may not have been brought to the attention of the superior jury for investigation.

Third. In confining the investigation to the action of the superior jury your proposed amendment practically precluded the possibility of any investigation, for the reason that the good faith of the superior jury is not regarded by the Commission as open to question, nor has the Commission contemplated as possible any necessity to question the findings of the superior jury on any subject properly and fully presented to, and decided by, that body on the merits.

It has been, and is, the contention of the Commission that fraud or corruption at any stage of the proceedings, whether discovered before or after action by the superior jury, if not investigated and adjudicated by that jury on the merits, should be open to the freest and fullest investigation by the Company and the Commission before final approval of the award.

In conclusion we briefly recapitulate the following points of law and fact, which we hold to be beyond dispute:

First. The law provides that the appointment of all judges and examiners for the exposition shall be approved by the Commission.

Second. The rules provide that all nominations of group jurors shall be made not later than August 1, 1904, except that nominations made to fill vacancies may be made at any subsequent time.

Third. That the nominations of jurors were not made to the Commission prior to August 1, as required by the rules.

Fourth. That no appointment of a juror could be legal or effective until approved by the Commission.

Fifth. That a large number of jurors were not nominated to the Commission until after they had performed their functions and repaired to their homes.

Sixth. That nominations of jurors were not made to the Commission in time to permit of any reasonable notice or investigation as to their fitness or willingness to serve.

Seventh. That in contemplation of law the Commission in approving or disapproving of an award would be called upon to exercise a quasi-judicial rather than a mere ministerial function, or, in other words, that the approval was not contemplated as a perfunctory act, and that, therefore, under no theory of construction can it be held that the Commission, not having been consulted in the appointment of jurors, as provided by the rules, is estopped from investigating charges of fraud or misconduct in procuring or making the awards.

Eighth. That before approval, it is the right, and is, therefore, the duty of the Commission, under the law, where the charges are of a character sufficiently grave and adequately sustained by affidavits, or otherwise, to investigate any charge of fraud made at any stage of the proceedings, either in the selection of the jurors or in procuring or making the awards.

Ninth. That under special rule No. 27 neither the superior jury nor the Exposition Company has the right to issue or promulgate any diploma, certificate, or other evidence of award for exhibitors without the signature of the president of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission having been previously attached thereto by authority of the Commission.

Holding these views and representing the Government of the United States in these important transactions, the Commission can not permit the use of its name, nor the name of any of its officers or members, in connection with any diploma, certificate, or other evidence of award while any part of the proceedings rest under adequately supported and uninvestigated charges of bribery, attempted bribery, corruption, fraud, or misconduct amounting to fraud.

In view of the position of your company, as announced in your letter of November 8, from which quotations are herein made, by direction of the Commission, I hereby notify you to refrain from using the name of the Commission or of any of its officers or members in or connected with any diploma, certificate, or other evidence of award for any exhibit or under special rule No. 27, until such time as the proposed award shall have been by you submitted to the Commission for approval, as provided in section 6 of the act of Congress and rule 6 of Article XXII of the general rules and regulations, which rules we hold to have the effect of law until modified or repealed by the consent of the Commission.

Respectfully, THOS. H. CARTER, President.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS, President Exposition Company.

A formal acknowledgment of the receipt of the foregoing communication was received from the Exposition Company on November 30, 1904.

No reply has ever been made to the letter or the subject-matter thereof on the merits. The allegations therein contained of flagrant violation of the rules and regulations in the selection and organization of the juries are strongly supported by the records and the silence of the officials of the Exposition Company. The charges of fraud and corruption in connection with certain awards, referred to in the letter, have never been denied nor explained.

The fact that there was a disagreement between the National Commission and the Exposition Company regarding awards became known through the public press, and thereupon the files of the Commission were quickly supplied with letters from exhibitors charging fraud and favoritism, and asking for information as to the status of the awards in the event of certificates of award being issued without the approval of the Commission.

The situation was aggravated by the fact that a concern known as "The Official Ribbon Company," acting under a concession from the Exposition Company, was disposing of ribbons certifying over the signatures of the president and the director of exhibits of the Exposition Company that awards had been made to the holders for the specific exhibits therein named.

Judging from the letters received by the Commission, these ribbons were disposed of indiscriminately and regardless of the fact as to whether or not the purchaser was entitled to the award set forth on the ribbon. Thus exhibitors who had been awarded silver medals by the jurors could and (the Commission is informed in some cases) did buy and display for advertising purposes ribbons certifying that they had received higher awards.

The relations of the Official Ribbon Company to the Exposition Company were based upon a contract, under the provisions of which the Exposition Company received 60 per cent of all moneys paid by the purchasers of the said ribbons.

The Official Ribbon Company carried on its correspondence under the letter heads of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, bearing the names of the president and other officers of said company.

Notwithstanding these communications, the ribbons continued to be advertised and sold, and, at the date of writing this report, they are prominently displayed in the place of business of a director of the Exposition Company, who was an exhibitor at the exposition.

The ribbons were sold to a large number of exhibitors before any awards were legally made, and bore notice that the holder thereof had received the award shown thereon.

Litigation has arisen between the Exposition Company and various exhibitors, seeking redress of wrongs or investigation of alleged fraud, which is now pending in the courts.

Within a few days of the time for filing this report under the provisions of the law, a director of the Exposition Company requested the Commission to specify the awards it would approve without investigation, to the end, presumably, that unchallenged awards might be submitted for approval. The Commission declined to enter upon the matter in this form for four reasons:

First. Because in its judgment every award should be subject to challenge on account of fraud, or misconduct amounting to fraud, at any time before the approval thereof.

Second. Because, through the means suggested, awards made by the company which were under charges of fraud and corruption would escape investigation, and the guilty parties would thereby be relieved from probable prosecution on account of criminal connection therewith, should the subject to be investigated disclose criminal action.

Third. The proposal did not come officially from the Exposition Company.

Fourth. That the proposition was made at so late a day as to preclude the possibility of investigation during the life of the Commission.

Thus it unhappily occurs that the awards must be made, if made at all, without the approval necessary to give them legal effect. This approval the Commission could not give without investigation, in the presence of unexplained charges of irregularity and fraud in certain cases.

By means of procrastination and evasion in the preparation of the subject-matter, in disagreement for arbitration, and finally by the issuance by authority of the company of official ribbons for a money consideration without the knowledge or approval of the Commission, the whole subject of the awarding of premiums is left without final action by the Commission at the date of the termination of its existence.

No list of the awards made has been submitted by the company to the Commission for approval, nor has the Commission ever been advised of the reasons for the persistent refusal of the company to submit the awards for its examination, save and except as set forth in the correspondence on the subject embodied in this report.

The whole matter turns upon the insistence of the Commission to investigate the charges of fraud made and fortified by affidavits in certain cases.

The company was notified that the Commission would accept the findings of the superior jury as conclusive in all cases excepting those in which fraud or misconduct amounting to fraud was charged. Under these circumstances, for the apparent purpose of avoiding such investigation and for no other reason known to the Commission, the company elected to decline agreement upon the matter to be arbitrated and to withhold all of the awards from the Commission. At the time of writing this report the Commission is not advised of any award made by the superior jury, nor does any award seem to have been promulgated, except through the Official Ribbon Company herein referred to, whose operations and whose relations to the Exposition Company should be inquired into by some competent authority.

At midnight on December 1, 1904, the Louisiana Purchase Exposition closed, and thereafter the disposition of the salvage was called the attention of the Commission by a communication from an attorney in St. Louis, which set forth charges of irregularity and discrimination on the part of the company in awarding a contract for the wrecking of the exposition buildings and the sale of the salvage. The attention of the Commission was called to statements from various contractors who had bid on the salvage of the exposition, that their bids had been ignored, and that favoritism had been shown to the wrecking concern which eventually obtained the salvage contract. The Commission decided that in view of the seriousness of the charges the subject required attention, and that statements supported by affidavits should be received setting forth all the facts in connection with the transaction. Prior to taking this step, however, the president of the Commission addressed the following communication to the president of the Exposition Company:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 1905.

SIR: I am directed to advise you that in the judgment of the National Commission the interest of the United States in the disposition of the property of the Exposition Company is manifest from a perusal of section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1901, making an appropriation for the exposition and for other purposes.

In the proceeds of the sale and disposition of the property purchased with the funds supplied by the General Government, the city of St. Louis, and the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, the United States is interested to the extent of one-third. Believing that this view of the law is correct, the Commission feels called upon not only to report the amount received from the sale or sales of the property of the exposition, but likewise where the bona fides of transactions is called in question to ascertain and report to the President of the United States the facts and circumstances therewith connected.

These suggestions are called forth by certain statements presented to the Commission, which, if true, affect the interests of the United States as defined by section 20 of the aforesaid act of Congress. These statements relate to the specifications and instructions dated October 1, 1904, signed by Mr. Isaac S. Taylor, director of works, under which bids were to be received for wrecking buildings and structures on the exposition grounds, together with a certain contract bearing date November 30, 1904, between the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company and the Chicago House Wrecking Company, said to be of record in the office of recorder of deeds in the city of St. Louis, book 1811, page 195 and following pages.

There is obviously a marked variance between the property referred to in the specifications and instructions and the property enumerated in the recorded contract. The specifications seemed to require that 50 per cent of the amount of the bid should accompany the same in the form of a check certified by some banking institution in the city of St. Louis, and that the remainder of the amount bid should be paid upon the execution of the contract.

Further, the specifications required that a bond should be filed with the Exposition Company in an amount equal to the bid to guarantee faithful execution of the terms of the contract by the bidder. The specifications expressly reserved copper wire, the intramural railway, the railroad tracks in the buildings, all machinery, etc., whereas the contract executed on November 30 seems to include all the items referred to and many other pieces of property not mentioned in the specifications.

The contract as executed seems to call for the payment of $450,000, of which only the sum of $100,000 was to be paid in cash and the remainder at stated periods in the future. Instead of requiring a bond equal to the amount of the bid the bond called for in the contract is less than 10 per cent of the amount of the bid.

It is alleged:

First. That secrecy was observed in handling the bids for the wrecking of buildings.

Second. That the Chicago House Wrecking Company was favored from the beginning.

Third. That the exposition officials rejected higher bids than that of the Chicago House Wrecking Company, so that the latter might have further opportunity to raise its figures.

Fourth. That only a partial list of the property, which did not include many valuable articles, was submitted to bidders outside of the Chicago House Wrecking Company, and that a complete list was refused other bidders.

Fifth. That a written offer of $400,000 cash, and more if lists could be secured, was ignored.

Sixth. That a bid of $450,000, half cash, was presented to the Exposition Company after the announcement of the sale of the salvage to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $386,000.

Seventh. That the contract was eventually given to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $450,000, with contract provisions inferior to the former $450,000 bid made by a party outside the Chicago House Wrecking Company.

Eighth. That the contract with the Chicago House Wrecking Company does not adequately protect the Government, the city of St. Louis, and the stockholders, the $40,000 bond being out of all proportion to the size of the sale.

Ninth. That the sale of the salvage to the Chicago House Wrecking Company was consummated over the protests of some of the directors of the Exposition Company.

Tenth. That the specifications were misleading, in that one item of copper wire, valued at $650,000, was omitted; also 5,000 electric lights, 5,000 tons of iron piping, 3,500 tons of other piping, the railway system on the exposition grounds, the fire apparatus, etc., were omitted.

Eleventh. That, according to an estimate made by several reputable contractors, the property sold was of the reasonable value of $1,955,000.

Twelfth. That the Chicago House Wrecking Company, through undue advantage, obtained inside information as to the extent and value of the property to be sold, and thereby, to the material injury of the United States, secured a contract with the Exposition Company insuring a profit of more than $1,000,000.

The above matters have been called to the attention of the Commission by Mr. Frank E. Richey, attorney and counselor at law, Oriol Building, Sixth and Locust streets, St. Louis, Mo., who accompanies his statements with copies of the contract and specifications referred to and many statements which he believes corroborate the charges he presents.

As the Commission may feel called upon to refer to this important transaction in its final report, it desires to afford the Exposition Company an opportunity to submit such statement or to take such action as it may deem proper in the premises.

Respectfully,

THOMAS H. CARTER, President.

Hon. DAVID R. FRANCIS, President Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, St. Louis, Mo.

To the foregoing communication the secretary of the Exposition Company made the following reply:

ST. LOUIS, U.S.A., March 7, 1905.

SIR: At a meeting of the executive committee of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company held this day the secretary, in the absence of the president, was instructed to prepare and to forward at once a response to the inquiries embodied in the letter of the National Commission bearing date of February 28, as regards the disposition of the salvage of the exposition.

At a meeting of the board of directors of the Exposition Company held September 13, 1904, on the recommendation of the executive committee a special committee on disposition of salvage was provided for "to consider and report at a date as early as practicable a plan for disposing of the property of the Exposition Company." Records and correspondence of the Exposition Company upon the disposal of the property are voluminous and definite. They show frequent meetings of the salvage committee, together with progress reports, consideration, and action by the executive committee and by the board of directors at almost every meeting, until, on the 13th of December, the salvage committee reported its recommendation, with the approval of the executive committee, to the board of directors that the property, with certain exceptions, be sold to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $450,000. From this sale were excepted the intramural cars and equipments, the property of the General Service Company, and certain other items, which are specified in the contract of sale.

For the cars and equipments the Exposition Company, as shown by the report of the auditor forwarded monthly to the National Commission, has received about $150,000. The property of the General Service Company, including buildings, horses, vehicles, and other physical property, is still in the possession of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company.

At the meeting of the board of directors held December 13, fifty-four members of the board being present, the recommendation of the committee on salvage, approved by the executive committee, that the physical property be sold to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $450,000, was approved. Not only was the vote unanimous, but the terms of the sale were made the subject of much congratulation by directors. No word of protest or of adverse criticism by any director of the Exposition Company is of record in the proceedings of the board and of the several committees or has come to the knowledge of the officers of the Exposition Company.

The salvage committee, before arriving at terms of sale, as the records show, held many meetings and resorted to various methods to elicit proposals for the property. Early in October sealed bids were invited for the wrecking and removal of the exhibit buildings. These advertisements were published in daily papers and in technical journals not confined to St. Louis. In addition to the advertising, circular letters were sent out to a long list of addresses of persons who had from time to time addressed letters on the subject of the salvage or parts of it to the exposition. Correspondence was taken up by the director of works with persons and firms in various parts of the country who were known to be in the wrecking business. Specifications were prepared and furnished to all who desired them.

On the 10th of November bids were opened by the committee on salvage. They were of very unsatisfactory character. Most of the bidders selected single exhibit buildings or small groups of minor buildings. The highest bid for all of the exhibit buildings opened that date was $50,000. One bid of $325,000 was made for "buildings, structures, salvage of all kinds, and all property owned by the Exposition Company." On the 12th of November the salvage committee rejected all bids. During the following two weeks the salvage committee held frequent meetings. Hearings were given by officers of the exposition to all persons desiring to negotiate for salvage. By wire and by mail persons and firms who might be interested were advised that the property was being offered for sale. Proposals were invited for all physical property of the company, except the intramural cars and equipments and the general service outfit.

The salvage committee waited for proposals in response to this invitation, covering the physical property generally, until nearly the end of November. Three bids were received. The highest was $420,000; the next highest was $300,000. After careful consideration and much negotiation with the various bidders, the salvage committee proposed to the highest bidder, namely, the Chicago House Wrecking Company, which had bid $420,000, to recommend the sale of the physical property to the board of directors, with the exceptions mentioned, for $450,000. This, after some delay, was accepted by the Chicago House Wrecking Company on the 30th of November, and was reported to the board of directors on the 13th of December, and was ratified unanimously.

The records and correspondence showing the proceedings throughout are on file in the office of the secretary, and are ready for inspection and investigation.

The allegations set forth in the letter of the National Commission as having been made to that body and the answers to be given to such allegations are:

First. That secrecy was observed in handling the bids for the wrecking of buildings.

Answer. It was the judgment of the salvage committee that better results could be obtained if secrecy was observed, in so far that the amounts of bids were not made public until the sale was accomplished. The wisdom of this judgment was vindicated in the amount realized for the salvage when compared with the lower bids.

Second. That the Chicago House Wrecking Company was favored from the beginning.

Answer. This is utterly false.

Third. That the exposition officials rejected higher bids than that of the Chicago House Wrecking Company, so that the latter might have further opportunity to raise its figures.

Answer. No higher bid was received either before or after the sum of $450,000 had been agreed upon to be recommended by the committee on salvage.

Fourth. That only a partial list of the property, which did not include many valuable articles, was submitted to bidders outside of the Chicago House Wrecking Company, and that a complete list was refused other bidders.

Answer. No complete list was submitted to the Chicago House Wrecking Company or to any other bidder. The Exposition Company, through the salvage committee and the executive committee, with deliberate intent refused to furnish any list purporting to be complete.

Fifth. That a written offer of $400,000 cash, and more, if lists could be secured, was ignored.

Answer. No such offer was received.

Sixth. That a bid of $450,000, half cash, was presented to the Exposition Company after the announcement of the sale of the salvage to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $386,000.

Answer. No such bid of $450,000 was received; the Chicago House Wrecking Company did not make a bid for $386,000.

Seventh. That the contract was eventually given to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $450,000, with contract provisions inferior to the former $450,000 bid made by a party outside the Chicago House Wrecking Company.

Answer. This statement is not true. There had been no bid of $450,000 on any terms when the sale was closed. The contract provisions were superior to any made in the bids.

Eighth. That the contract with the Chicago House Wrecking Company does not adequately protect the Government, the city of St. Louis, and the stockholders, the $40,000 bond being out of all proportion to the size of the sale.

Answer. The bond of $40,000 was not taken to secure the payment of the $450,000, or any part of it. The first payment of $100,000 was made on the signing of the contract of sale. The remaining $350,000 was secured adequately by a mortgage on the property covered by the bill of sale. The $40,000 bond was required to enforce other conditions of the contract, namely, those relative to the wrecking and removal of the property under conditions of leases upon which the property stood. A part of the contract required that property be kept insured for the benefit of the Exposition Company until all payments were made. The bond covered these provisions. The Chicago House Wrecking Company made its second payment of $100,000 on February 1. The third payment will be due March 15. The company holds a mortgage on the property to secure the remaining payments, and only releases the property to the Chicago House Wrecking Company as the payments are made.

Ninth. That the sale of the salvage to the Chicago House Wrecking Company was consummated over the protests of some of the directors of the Exposition Company.

Answer. On the contrary, as the records show, the board was unanimous in approval of the contract of the sale and, as stated, there is no record anywhere of objection on the part of any director.

Tenth. That the specifications were misleading, in that one item of copper wire, valued at $650,000, was omitted; also 5,000 electric lights, 5,000 tons of iron piping, 3,500 tons of other piping, the railway system on the exposition grounds, the fire apparatus, etc., were omitted.

Answer. The first specifications, probably those referred to in this paragraph, related only to exhibit buildings. Subsequently the salvage committee informed bidders when bids were taken on all of the physical property that the intramural cars and equipments were to be excepted, and also the property of the General Service Company, which was owned by the Exposition Company. Quantities of wire had been purchased under the contracts permitting return on a percentage of the price paid. As regards the iron piping, bidders were informed of the clause in the ordinance authorizing the use of Forest Park which declared that "sewers, drains, conduits, pipes, and fixtures shall become and be the property of the city." By reference to the contract of sale to the Chicago House Wrecking Company it will be observed that the company sells "subject to whatever rights the city of St. Louis may be entitled to in certain underground pipes, sewers, and conduits in Forest Park." Some of the fire apparatus was loaned or rented to the Exposition Company, and was not owned by it. Many things used by the Exposition Company were sold to it with the privilege of return, or with a contract to return at stipulated amounts or percentages. The exposition officers and the salvage committee answered inquiries, as far as were in their power, made by bidders regarding the property, but from first to last refused to furnish an itemized list. By reference to the contract of sale it will be observed that no list is contained therein, but that the company sells and transfers "the interest, or right, or ownership in or to any and all physical property purchased, constructed, or acquired by the said Exposition Company, excepting as hereinafter mentioned."

Eleventh. That according to an estimate made by several reputable contractors the property sold was of the reasonable value of $1,955,000.

Answer. The Exposition Company has no knowledge of such estimates. If contractors did place such estimates upon the value of the physical property they were singularly lacking in enterprise when they did not come forward with higher bids. The amount realized was the highest bid made for the property.

Twelfth. That the Chicago House Wrecking Company, through undue advantage, obtained inside information as to the extent and value of the property to be sold, and thereby to the material injury of the United States secured a contract with the Exposition Company insuring a profit of more than $1,000,000.

Answer. The Chicago House Wrecking Company obtained no information that was not accessible to and obtainable by any other bidder.

Very respectfully, WALTER B. STEVENS, Secretary.

Hon. THOMAS H. CARTER, _President National Commission, Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

ST. LOUIS, March 7, 1905.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I send herewith, by direction of the executive committee, a reply to the letter from the Commission of February 28. President Francis is absent from the city, having gone last week to New Orleans. I think I should add something from my personal knowledge. Mr. Richey is well known to me, and has been for years. He must have been badly misinformed to have made such allegations as are contained in the letter. I have all of the minutes of the various meetings and a collection of correspondence which go to show that many of these allegations are without foundation. Some of them, I can see, are inferences drawn from misstatements of the facts and from misunderstandings of the real situation.

I have never so much as heard an intimation that any director of the company, or anyone else who knew of the transactions, protested against the sale or adversely criticised the amount realized. On the other hand, the general impression among directors and on the part of the public seems to be that the Exposition Company realized more than was to be expected. The salvage of the World's Fair in Chicago sold for $80,000, that of Omaha for $37,500, and that of Buffalo for $67,000.

Before the exposition closed the management had begun to dispose of salvage in a small way, but the results were very discouraging. It looked much as if the property of this exposition would go as had that of previous expositions, for a very small fraction of the cost. At one time the directors of the company thought it might be necessary to organize a company and carry the salvage through a series of years in order to realize on it. But the best that could be figured from such a course was from $300,000 to $350,000 for the same property sold to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $450,000.

The only persons who raised any question about the sale and the amount realized were two disappointed bidders. These bidders were given all of the time they asked. They were furnished information in reply to their inquiries. They could not be given lists of the property of the exposition because, after careful consideration of such lists, it was deemed inadvisable by the exposition to attempt a sale on that basis. It was the conclusion that more could be realized by selling all right and title to the physical property of the exposition. I believe that more was realized than would have been obtained on bids if an inventory had been furnished.

The Chicago House Wrecking Company was doing business on the grounds during the exposition and previous thereto. The officers of that company have been in the wrecking business for years. Looking forward to the time, they saved, as I happened to learn, clippings from the newspapers showing contracts let by the exposition; also clippings showing purchases of various kinds. In fact, for months they were gathering through outside sources all the information they could as to the character of the company's property. In this way they obtained their information as to this property. They were given no list from the company. They were given no advantage over other bidders. I know it to be a fact that the Exposition Company did all in its power to induce other bidders to come from other cities, and stimulated competition. The correspondence and telegrams passing through my hands show this. There was a great deal of property that the exposition had the use of and did not own. This applied to fire apparatus, to electric switch boards, to machinery, to street sweepers, to watering carts, and to a great variety of things that were of utility and were loaned by the manufacturers or dealers, who wished to have them in service for the advertising to be gained thereby.

The city is claiming, under the ordinance from which I have quoted in the other letter, the piping on that part of the ground included in Forest Park, and only to-day wrote asking to know when this pipe could be taken up by the city.

It will afford me pleasure to answer any inquiry or to forward to you any document relating to this salvage matter which you may desire to see.

Can you advise me how long you expect to remain in Washington?

Very truly, yours, WALTER B. STEVENS, Secretary.

Hon. THOMAS H. CARTER, President National Commission, Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

Having been elected a Senator of the United States from the State of Montana, Mr. Thomas H. Carter, president of the Commission, resigned his office as member of the Commission on March 9, 1905. At a meeting of the Commission held on March 20, 1905, the following letter was received from Mr. Carter, and his resignation as president of the Commission was duly accepted:

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 9, 1905.

GENTLEMEN: Finding that my duties as United States Senator, assumed on the 4th of this month, will so far require my attention as to render it difficult to longer continue a member of the Commission, I have determined to hand my resignation to the president, and preliminary thereto I respectfully resign the position of president of the Commission.

In tendering my resignation I can not refrain from expressing to the Commission jointly, and to the members separately, my grateful appreciation of the unfailing confidence and cordial support with which I have been favored at all times by the members of the Commission, without exception.

It is questionable whether any like body of men, selected from the country at large, has ever acted more harmoniously in the discharge of any public duty.

With deep regret, and only from a sense of duty, I sever my relations with the Commission, and in doing so wish each of my associates on the Commission long life and prosperity.

Respectfully submitted. THOS. H. CARTER.

The honorable LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Carter also addressed a letter to the President of the United States, tendering his resignation as a member of the Commission, which reads as follows:

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 9, 1905.

SIR: My election to the Senate of the United States from the State of Montana imposes upon me duties which render it quite impracticable for me to devote the time and attention necessary to a proper discharge of my duties as a member of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission. I therefore respectfully tender you my resignation as a member of the Commission, and in doing so I thank you sincerely for the cordial and unfailing support and consideration you have always extended to me as a member of that body.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, THOS. H. CARTER.

The PRESIDENT, Washington, D.C.

Mr. John M. Thurston was thereupon unanimously elected to succeed Mr. Carter as president of the Commission.

At this meeting Mr. John D. Waite, of Lewistown, Mont., recently appointed by President Roosevelt as a member of the Commission to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Carter, appeared and took his place on the Commission.

At the same meeting the secretary of the Exposition Company requested the privilege of making a personal explanation with reference to the disposition of the salvage.

From his statement it appears that he was not connected personally with the transaction, which was conducted by a committee, of which the president of the Exposition Company was chairman. The secretary did not leave any written statement or explanation, but in general terms said the exposition officials were entirely satisfied with the amount of money received for the salvage; that it was more than they expected, and that they thought the result of the sale was a subject for congratulation.

Upon the suggestion of the Commission the secretary of the Exposition Company on March 23 addressed a communication to the Commission on this subject, of which the following is a copy:

MARCH 23, 1905.

DEAR SIR: By way of supplement to the letter forwarded to the National Commission March 7, and in accordance with suggestion made verbally by the Commission at the meeting Monday, March 20, I submit this statement relevant to the tenth allegation on page 3 of the letter from President Carter, dated February 28, 1905.

Tenth. That the specifications were misleading, in that one item of copper wire, valued at $650,000, was omitted; also 5,000 (500,000) electric lights, 5,000 tons of iron piping, 3,500 tons of other piping, the railway system on the exposition grounds, the fire apparatus, etc., were omitted.

Answer. The Exposition Company purchased under contract with the American Steel and Wire Company, dated April 3, 1902, copper wire to the amount of $320,160.33. The estimated salvage under this contract as furnished by the electrical engineer of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company on or about November 14, 1904, was $121,753.68. Of this estimated salvage the sum of $46,700 was based on the presumption that the Exposition Company could sell in the open market the copper wire in its storehouse that had never been used. The contract with the American Steel and Wire Company, as read to the National Commission, provided that wire in good condition should be taken back by the American Steel and Wire Company at 55 per cent of its original cost. Owing to changes in the head of the electrical department, Mr. Rustin being compelled to give up his position on account of sickness, and owing to changes made in the plans for electric lighting, the Exposition Company at the opening was in possession of this quantity of unused wire, estimated in the salvage to be worth $46,700, if sold at the market value, but worth to the Exposition Company $23,860 if it was returned to the American Steel and Wire Company under its contract at 55 per cent of the original cost. The Exposition Company claimed that this unused and unpacked wire should not be returned under the contract and endeavored to sell it. The company was prevented from making sale by an injunction taken out by the Chicago House Wrecking Company. The Wrecking Company had purchased the Steel and Wire Company's rights of salvage under the contract of April 3, 1903. This injunction was pending in court at the time the sale of salvage was negotiated in November. If the contention of the Chicago House Wrecking Company was sustained it would have reduced the estimated salvage on the copper wire to $97,893.68. The purchase of the general salvage by the Chicago House Wrecking Company ended the injunction proceedings. Copies of the contract with the American Steel and Wire Company and of the contract between the American Steel and Wire Company and the Chicago House Wrecking Company, which are of record in the office of the recorder of St. Louis City and in the office of the county clerk of St. Louis County, will be forwarded to the National Commission if desired. The reason that the copper wire could not be included in the original specifications was the pending injunction proceedings.

The Exposition Company purchased electric light bulbs referred to in the tenth allegation, of different sizes and under different contracts, to the amount of $65,688. The estimated value of lamps not used at the time of the close of the fair was $16,890.

As regards the fire-fighting apparatus it may be explained that most of this material was procured by the exposition on a rental or loan basis. The Exposition Company owned one second-hand La France fire engine, one second-hand Silsby fire engine, one fuel wagon, and four combination chemical hose wagons. The total cost of this apparatus to the Exposition Company was $5,325.

As regards the piping it can be stated that the Exposition Company had no unused piping; the company did not buy pipe and carry it in stock, but paid under contract for the pipe of various sizes after it was laid in the ground at so much per foot. This was the general practice by the company as regards the piping. By reference to the letter of March 7, it will be observed that the answer to the tenth allegation explains why the company could only sell the piping "subject to whatever rights the city of St. Louis may be entitled to in certain underground pipes, sewers, and conduits in Forest Park." It can be stated that this complication of title to the piping applied to two-thirds if not three-fourths of all of the piping which had been laid at the expense of the Exposition Company.

Because the copper wire was involved in the injunction proceedings, because the electric lights constituted a minor item as shown by the figures given above, because the piping was involved in the construction of the city ordinance, because the greater part of the fire apparatus was not owned by the Exposition Company these items were not mentioned in the original specifications.

As stated in the former letter, the intramural cars and equipments were excepted from all offers of sale because the company had already contracted for the sale of them.

After the first bids received under the specifications referred to in the tenth allegation had been rejected because they were in the opinion of the salvage committee wholly insufficient, new bids were asked for all of the salvage of the company including such right and title as it might have in the copper wire, in the electric lights, in the iron piping, in the fire apparatus, etc., with the exceptions of the intramural cars and equipments and the property of the General Service Company. From that time to the acceptance of the proposition to sell the Chicago House Wrecking Company the negotiations proceeded on the plan that the Exposition Company would sell all right, title, and interest to its property with the exceptions of the cars and equipments and property of the General Service Company.

Under the original specifications a certified check for one-half of the amount of the bid was required and the terms were half cash, but this requirement and these terms did not enter into the negotiations following the rejection of the first bids. All bidders showing a disposition to bid for right, title, and interest of the Exposition Company to all salvage except as stated were treated alike. Certified checks were not required on these later bids. The negotiations were carried on verbally with the bidders in turn, it being understood that the company would insist upon what it deemed to be an adequate cash payment when the contract of sale was concluded.

The secretary of the company is authorized to say that the executive committee courts the fullest investigation of all circumstances connected with the sale of the salvage and that if the National Commission shall deem it necessary to include in its report mention of the allegations contained in the letter of the president of the Commission, dated February 28, the committee asks that in justice to the Exposition Company such investigation shall be made and the conclusions of the Commission shall be given.

Very respectfully, WALTER B. STEVENS, Secretary.

Mr. LAURENCE H. GRAHAME, Secretary National Commission, Washington, D.C.

Another communication bearing on the disposition of the salvage was received from Mr. Stevens, as follows:

MARCH 23, 1905.

DEAR SIR: At a meeting of the National Commission on the 20th the suggestion was made by a member of the Commission that the answer to allegation third did not fully cover the ground. The allegation and the answer were:

That the exposition officials rejected higher bids than that of the Chicago House Wrecking Company, so that the latter might have further opportunity to raise its figures.

Answer. No higher bid was received either before or after the sum of $450,000 had been agreed upon to be recommended by the committee on salvage.

The purpose was to answer that no higher bid than that made by the Chicago House Wrecking Company was received either before; at the time, or after the sum of $450,000 had been agreed upon to be recommended by the committee on salvage.

On the 30th of November, early in the day, the Chicago House Wrecking Company made a bid for $420,000. Up to that time and during that day the next highest bid was under $400,000. Late in the day, the 30th of November, the salvage committee, after conference with all bidders who presented themselves, made the proposition to the Chicago House Wrecking Company that if it would raise its bid from $420,000 to $450,000 the committee would recommend acceptance by the executive committee.

Respectfully, WALTER B. STEVENS, Secretary.

Mr. LAURENCE H. GRAHAME, Secretary National Commission, Washington, D.C.

As a result of the inquiry instituted by the Commission into the disposal of the salvage, statements supported by affidavits were received and the same are appended to this report and marked "Appendix No. 2."

Under the act of Congress the Commission had no power to undertake a more thorough investigation of the charges and allegations made in respect to the manner in which the salvage of the exposition had been disposed of.

Without authority to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, or to compel witnesses to testify, any further attempt upon the part of the Commission to inquire into the salvage matter would have been futile and ineffective. If any further action is to be taken to ascertain whether or not the financial interest of the United States has been sacrificed by the manner in which the salvage was disposed of, the inquiry must be conducted by some committee or official having these powers, which the Commission did not possess.

A careful perusal of the law under which the Commission was appointed will show the narrow limits of its legal authority, and the records disclose the policy of the Exposition Company not only to confine the Commission strictly within the narrowest limits of the law, but also to question and resist the exercise of its authority in many instances where the law seemed to place such authority beyond question.

From the very beginning the Commission sought to establish harmonious relations with the company, and at all times refrained from contention with its officials as to all matters not vitally affecting the interest of the Government, and endeavored in every possible way to cooperate with the company in promoting the exposition and insuring its success.

It is pleasant to turn from disagreements to achievements. From the scientific, the artistic, and the industrial points of view the exposition was a pronounced success. The munificent and unfailing support given the enterprise by the Government of the United States guaranteed that it would be a great exposition.

Considering the primary appropriation of $5,000,000, the loan of $4,600,000, and the contributions by the direct appropriations and by indirect means through the assignment of officers paid from other appropriations, together with the exhibits from Districts, Territories, and dependencies of the United States, and for the Government exhibit, the aggregate contributions, direct and indirect, to the success of the fair approximated substantially $15,000,000 on the day the gates were opened to the public.

In addition to this proclamations were twice issued by the President inviting foreign nations to participate in the exposition; the consular and diplomatic representatives of the Government were inspired to aid the exposition to the extent of their ability, within the limits of official propriety; the army transports and the vessels of the Navy were generously employed in furtherance of the project, where such employment was found consistent with duty. Never in history has any Government done so much in aid of any like enterprise. With such support from the Government failure was impossible under any rational management.

[Transcriber's note: The easiest way to explain the garbled nature of the following paragraph, is that the first line beginning with St. Louis is a misplaced duplicate of the third line below it, replacing some other typeslug.]

Fortunately the construction of the main exhibit buildings was placed by the directors of the Exposition Company in charge of two gentlemen deserving of special mention on account of the devotion and exceptional ability displayed by each. As chairman of the committee on grounds and buildings, Mr. William H. Thompson, of St. Louis, discharged the duty of director of works. To the united ous devotion to the task assigned him. With rare ability and commendable persistence Mr. Isaac S. Taylor, the talented architect of St. Louis, discharged the duty of director of works. To the united efforts of these gentlemen the exposition and the country are indebted for the magnificent architectural creations which adorned the exposition grounds. Their relations to the work of construction and to the affairs of the company enabled them to act with a necessary degree of self-reliance and independence on their own initiative.

Among the many contributions made by the Government of the United States to the success of the exposition, the exhibit from the Philippine Islands deserves marked attention. This exhibit was so extensive, interesting, and unique that it became the center of predominating interest. Through its various departments a most valuable and accurate knowledge of the Philippine Archipelago was diffused, not only throughout the United States, but throughout the world.

By a fortunate coincidence it occurred that the Secretary of War, who had most to do with the marshaling of this exhibit, had been prepared for the work by his experience as governor of the Philippine Islands. Hon. William H. Taft, as president of the Philippine Commission, and subsequently as governor of the Philippine Islands, manifested a sympathetic interest in the condition of the people, the resources of the islands, and in the proper adjustment of both to their new relationship with the United States. About the time the exposition was projected Governor Taft, whose long and faithful service in the Philippines had endeared him to the inhabitants, was called by the President to accept the portfolio of war. His familiarity with the people and the resources of the islands proved of inestimable value in the preparation of the representation and exhibits at the exposition. Through his efficient Chief of the Insular Bureau, Col. Clarence R. Edwards, the Secretary, with great zeal and effectiveness, addressed himself to the task of securing appropriate representation for the Philippine people.

The administrative work was placed in charge of Dr. W.P. Wilson, of the Philadelphia Museum. A more appropriate selection of an executive officer could not have been made. Industrious, painstaking, and devoted, Doctor Wilson threw all his energy and superior ability into the task assigned him.

In Dr. Gustavo Neiderlein and Mr. Edmund A. Felder, Doctor Wilson had able and faithful lieutenants. Through the combined efforts of such competent and devoted men the Philippine exposition was developed into a revelation of world-wide interest.

The extremes of civilization found in the Philippine Islands were exhibited upon the grounds. The industrial conditions existing in the islands in their various stages of progress were clearly set forth. The millions of visitors who were interested and instructed by this remarkable exhibit must have been deeply impressed with the importance and extent of our new possessions in the Orient.

It is quite impossible to compute the value to the American people of this Philippine exhibit. In giving to the country the basis upon which to form a just conception of the character and possibilities of our new possessions the Philippine department alone fully justified the interest of the nation in the Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

The official report of the Philippine exhibit, filed with the records of the Commission, is replete with interest and will justify careful perusal.

REPORTS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

The response of foreign governments and peoples to the invitation of the President of the United States was in every way most gratifying. For an adequate description of the manner and extent of foreign participation in the exposition, reference must be made to the reports of the respective commissioners to their governments, copies of which are filed with this report.

The Commission, desiring to tersely review the exhibits of the various countries, called upon their several representatives for a brief statement of the nature and extent of their exhibits. The responses received convey but a meager idea of the great display made, but a perusal of the epitomized reports will serve to convey an outline of the exhibits made and the buildings constructed.

Condensed summaries of these reports have been prepared and are submitted as a part of this report, marked "Appendix No. 3."

REPORTS OF STATES, TERRITORIES, AND DISTRICTS.

Inspired by the example of the General Government, and stimulated by the extent of foreign participation, in response to the invitation of the President, the several States, Territories, and Districts of the United States contributed to the success of this exposition in a far greater degree than on former occasions of like character.

As in the case of foreign countries, the Commission called upon the representatives of the various States, Territories, and Districts for a brief statement of the extent and character of the exhibits made by them. The reports of the representatives to the authorities by which they were appointed have been collected as far as practicable and are filed with this report.

Condensed summaries of these reports have been prepared and are submitted as a part of this report, marked "Appendix No. 4."