Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission Part 18

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 advertis.e.m.e.nt of the Brown Shoe Company of their awards. It surprised me as much as it did you. I have inst.i.tuted 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 advertis.e.m.e.nt 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 refres.h.i.+ng 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 s.h.i.+rk 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 a.s.sented 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 Sat.u.r.day, 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 advertis.e.m.e.nt 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 advertis.e.m.e.nt 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 establis.h.i.+ng 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.