Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission

by Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission

Mr. James S. Tawney, of Minnesota, a member of the House of Representatives, and chairman of the committee for this and similar appropriations, when in St. Louis had listened with interest to the representation of the subject setting forth the needs of the board of lady managers, and kindly had promised his good offices in helping to advance their cause. He promptly granted an interview when informed that the committee had arrived in Washington, and, while most courteous, did not disguise the fact that there were grave dangers ahead for the loan to the Exposition Company, which had been made a part of the urgent deficiency bill. He examined the budget which had been prepared, giving careful scrutiny to each item, and, after some suggestions and minor changes, a budget was submitted to him which was afterwards used.

On January 29 President Francis went before the Senate committee, and on February 1 appeared before the House committee, on behalf of a loan for the Exposition Company.

During the long interim preceding the arrival of President Francis and those aiding him, those of the committee who had remained in the capital were untiring in their efforts to make friends for the bill, and as their cause was heartily indorsed by their respective Senators and many members of their State delegations, they became most hopeful of ultimate success.

The unceasing energy of the members of the legislative committee was admirably aided by the president of this board, who had been untiring in her efforts to make friends for the bill, and had used these efforts in a masterly manner. Her large acquaintance among, and knowledge of, men of affairs in Washington, and her clear statements as to the way in which this board had been created, and her convincing argument that the work of the board must of necessity be most inadequate and inefficient by reason of lack of funds, gained many advocates for the bill, and to her is due the credit for the success of the work which the committee was appointed to do. She was always at work, unresting, unhasting, and, although weary and worn with the interminable delay, neither she nor any member of the committee left any honorable means untried in order to secure what was so vitally necessary to the very existence of this board during the exposition.

As the result of the combined efforts some who had affected indifference became interested, and some who had previously stoutly declared unalterable opposition finally yielded, not only working and voting themselves in favor of the bill, but persuading others to do so. It was naturally a source of great satisfaction to the members of the legislative committee that the strongest and most influential men of both Houses gave recognition to the urgent claims which the board of lady managers had upon Congress. It was these men who insisted upon the incorporation of the specific clause providing for their $100,000 as an amendment in the loan bill. This was eventually done, and the amendment remained there until the passage of the bill, thus becoming a part of the law governing the Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

A brief description of the manner in which the loan bill was brought before Congress may be of interest.

There is, in every session, what is called an urgency deficiency bill, the object of which is to take care of the different Interests which are likely to fail through inadequate appropriation. The opposition to including the item of the loan for the Exposition Company was found to be so powerful that it could not be inserted in the bill when it was sent to the House. This urgent deficiency bill passed the House and went to the Senate. There the loan amendment was inserted, and finally our amendment was added also. It passed the Senate and was then returned to the House in order that that body might pass upon the amendments which the Senate had added. In the meetings before the two appropriation committees, as well as in the discussion in the two Houses, the arguments for and against were very forcibly expressed. One reason advanced as to why the loan should be made was because other governments had been invited to participate, and the company should be enabled to open its gates in a manner befitting a national host. Among the main objections set forth at length were: First, the alleged unconstitutionality of the whole proceeding; second, the inadequacy of the security. All those speaking against the measure affected a total disbelief that the receipts would be sufficient to enable the company to return the money advanced, and, of course, a spasm of economy nearly rent these statesmen in twain.

The exposition management was not spared. More than one speaker waxed eloquent over what he declared was wanton waste of the greatest amount of money ever intrusted to an exposition management, which wanton waste had made the Exposition Company bankrupt and again at the doors of the Treasury begging for funds. Those working against the bill triumphantly quoted the following clause, which is section 24 of the original bill, and which authorized the creation of the exposition. It reads:

"That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to create any liability of the United States, direct or indirect, for any debt or obligation incurred, nor for any claim for aid or pecuniary assistance from Congress or the United States in support or liquidation of the debts or obligations created by said Commission."

After postponement and delays, the bill of the 11th of February passed the House 172 to 115—57 majority. On the 15th it went back to the Senate and was promptly passed.