Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission Part 20

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 j.a.pan | 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 a.s.sume 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, a.s.signed 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 pa.s.s 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 subst.i.tutes 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 enc.u.mbered 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 a.s.sume 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 ent.i.tled 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 establis.h.i.+ng 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 compet.i.tors, 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.