Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission Part 21

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 ent.i.tled 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 circ.u.mstances, 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:

WAs.h.i.+NGTON, 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 circ.u.mstances 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 inst.i.tution 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 advertis.e.m.e.nts 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.