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: