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.
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 entitled 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.