Читать книгу Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission - Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission - Страница 51

DEAR SIR: Your communication of Saturday, November 5, was not read by me until yesterday, Monday, November 7, and was submitted to the executive committee to-day. I can not say whether the tone and spirit of the letter, or the statement that you misunderstood the position of the Exposition Company, was the more surprising. 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 accepted the contention that the National Commission has the right to approve or disapprove the awards of the superior jury before they are final. It is true I did invite you into my office after the receipt of your letter of October 18, and also true that I stated to you I regretted the view taken by the National Commission of its prerogatives or its duty, but none the less true that I also said that, inasmuch as the rules governing the system of awards had been promulgated and acted upon after approval by the Exhibition Company and the National Commission, that neither the Exposition Company nor the National Commission has the right to review the awards or overturn them. I did state that no official announcement of awards would be made until the Exposition Company and the National Commission should be advised of what they were, to the end that, if there had been any irregularity in the awarding, any errors or omissions, or any fraud, the same might be corrected; but at no time have I ever said anything that would justify you or anyone else in the conclusion that either the Exposition Company or the National Commission had the right to review the action of the superior jury with the power to overturn the awards on the ground that they were not justly made on the merits of the exhibits. It was certainly my understanding when we parted after the conference in my office that the situation was clear to you, and I have a distinct recollection, as does Judge Ferriss, who was present at the conference, that Mr. Betts accepted the situation. You offered no definite objection, but did state in an interrogatory tone that you were not yet ready to relinquish the right of the National Commission to approve the awards. I have had no conversation with you since that date on the subject, but Judge Boyle tells me that in conversation with Mr. Betts on the subject, after the interview in my office, he told Mr. Betts that the superior jury was progressing with its work and had no objection to any member or members of the National Commission being present at its sessions; and further, that as fast as the work progressed the results would be informally communicated to the National Commission, so that if the Commission should find any errors it could call the committee's attention to same, so that corrections could be made before an official announcement of awards. His impression, from the conversation with Mr. Betts, was that this arrangement was entirely satisfactory to the Commission, and would obviate any further controversy as to the right of the Commission to approve or disapprove the awards before they became final.

I therefore not only deny any intention to mislead you or the National Commission concerning the position of the superior jury and the Exposition Company, but state emphatically that I have said nothing that justifies any belief or impression on the part of anyone that either the superior jury or the Exposition Company admitted the contention of the National Commission that it had the right to approve or disapprove awards finally made by the superior jury in pursuance of the rules and regulations adopted by this company and approved by the Commission.

I made two replies to your letter of November 4, and my reason for doing so was explained in the second letter. My first letter was dictated immediately on receipt and on a cursory reading of your communication inclosing the advertisement of an award in the morning papers of November 4, and was hurriedly made through earnest consideration for and extreme courtesy toward the National Commission. It merely advised that I was investigating the advertisement and would report as soon as I could learn upon what authority of the Exposition Company or superior jury, if any, it had been inserted in the daily papers. Upon a rereading of your letter and a reference of same to members of the superior jury, my attention was called to the fact that a failure to reply to that portion of your letter claiming the right of the National Commission to approve or disapprove awards made on their merits might be construed as an acknowledgment of such contention, whereupon I sent to you the second communication. Until the receipt of your letter of the 5th, I was under the impression that the situation as it exists was accepted by the National Commission, as it has been by the Exposition Company.

I note the request in your letter "that in future our (your) written communications be answered in writing," and it will be complied with. Furthermore, if this request is made by authority of the National Commission, as such, I desire that all communications of the National Commission to the Exposition Company shall hereafter be in writing.

As to your request for an arbitration, if you still insist on having it the Exposition Company will interpose no obstacle.

In this connection, I desire to inform you that the diplomas or certificates of award provided for in the rules and regulations are being engraved, and the facsimile signatures of the president, secretary, and director of exhibits of the Exposition Company, and of the president of the National Commission placed thereon. If the National Commission is unwilling to have the name of its president engraved on these diplomas until or unless the awards are approved by the National Commission, the fact should be made known at the earliest possible moment, so that there may be no unnecessary expense incurred.

This letter has been submitted to the executive committee of the

Exposition Company and has been approved by it.

Yours truly

P.R. FRANCIS, President.

Hon. JOHN M. ALLEN, Acting President National Commission, Administration Building.

Informal conferences were held with the exposition officials from time to time, but no agreement was reached, and on November 11 the Commission submitted the following draft of suggestions to the Exposition Company for the finding of the board of arbitration:

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 proven.

Second. The lists of awards as made by the superior jury are to be transmitted to the Exposition Company, and certificates of awards 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 affidavit or other sworn testimony establishing a prima facie case of such fraud or misconduct in procuring or making of said award.

The arbitration committee of the Exposition Company replied to the foregoing propositions as follows: