Читать книгу Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission - Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission - Страница 58

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:

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 proved.

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

Your representative did not entertain the proposition for arbitration, according to the suggestions submitted, but proposed to change the first clause so as to confine the impeachment of an award or awards to fraudulent conduct on the part of the superior jury, and thus to exclude inquiries concerning fraud, if any, practiced on any jury by successful competitors, or misconduct on the part of individual jurors, or misconduct on the part of any officer or representative of the Exposition Company, amounting to fraudulent influence and affecting the character of an award, or the course of procedure in reference thereto. The representatives of the Exposition Company declined to consider the third clause suggested.

A communication was received from Mr. Knapp, a member of your arbitration board, under date of November 11, submitting amendments to the suggestions transmitted by the Commission under the same date, as follows:

(1) Change in the first clause so as to read as follows:

"The awards as made by the superior jury are final and binding upon the Exposition Company and the National Commission, except as to any award or awards which are impeached by said company or Commission for fraudulent conduct on the part of said jury in making the award."

(2) Omit entirely the third clause.

The restrictions thus sought to be placed upon the investigation of charges of fraud or misconduct as proposed by the amendment were unsatisfactory.

First. Because the impeachment of an award, as construed by your Mr. Knapp's letter, was to be confined exclusively to the company and the Commission, whereas in the judgment of the Commission any party feeling aggrieved, and having knowledge of the fraud or misconduct complained of, should be permitted to come forward with the charges and proofs.

Second. In confining the investigation of alleged fraudulent conduct to the superior jury alone, the proposed amendment would obviously operate to preclude any inquiry into any charge of fraud or misconduct on the part of any group or department jury or jurors, or any person or persons not connected with the juries, who might, through fraud, bribery, or misrepresentation have illegally or wrongfully influenced or procured an award, the facts concerning which may not have been brought to the attention of the superior jury for investigation.

Third. In confining the investigation to the action of the superior jury your proposed amendment practically precluded the possibility of any investigation, for the reason that the good faith of the superior jury is not regarded by the Commission as open to question, nor has the Commission contemplated as possible any necessity to question the findings of the superior jury on any subject properly and fully presented to, and decided by, that body on the merits.

It has been, and is, the contention of the Commission that fraud or corruption at any stage of the proceedings, whether discovered before or after action by the superior jury, if not investigated and adjudicated by that jury on the merits, should be open to the freest and fullest investigation by the Company and the Commission before final approval of the award.

In conclusion we briefly recapitulate the following points of law and fact, which we hold to be beyond dispute:

First. The law provides that the appointment of all judges and examiners for the exposition shall be approved by the Commission.

Second. The rules provide that all nominations of group jurors shall be made not later than August 1, 1904, except that nominations made to fill vacancies may be made at any subsequent time.

Third. That the nominations of jurors were not made to the

Commission prior to August 1, as required by the rules.

Fourth. That no appointment of a juror could be legal or

effective until approved by the Commission.

Fifth. That a large number of jurors were not nominated to the

Commission until after they had performed their functions and

repaired to their homes.

Sixth. That nominations of jurors were not made to the

Commission in time to permit of any reasonable notice or

investigation as to their fitness or willingness to serve.

Seventh. That in contemplation of law the Commission in approving or disapproving of an award would be called upon to exercise a quasi-judicial rather than a mere ministerial function, or, in other words, that the approval was not contemplated as a perfunctory act, and that, therefore, under no theory of construction can it be held that the Commission, not having been consulted in the appointment of jurors, as provided by the rules, is estopped from investigating charges of fraud or misconduct in procuring or making the awards.

Eighth. That before approval, it is the right, and is, therefore, the duty of the Commission, under the law, where the charges are of a character sufficiently grave and adequately sustained by affidavits, or otherwise, to investigate any charge of fraud made at any stage of the proceedings, either in the selection of the jurors or in procuring or making the awards.

Ninth. That under special rule No. 27 neither the superior jury nor the Exposition Company has the right to issue or promulgate any diploma, certificate, or other evidence of award for exhibitors without the signature of the president of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission having been previously attached thereto by authority of the Commission.

Holding these views and representing the Government of the United States in these important transactions, the Commission can not permit the use of its name, nor the name of any of its officers or members, in connection with any diploma, certificate, or other evidence of award while any part of the proceedings rest under adequately supported and uninvestigated charges of bribery, attempted bribery, corruption, fraud, or misconduct amounting to fraud.

In view of the position of your company, as announced in your letter of November 8, from which quotations are herein made, by direction of the Commission, I hereby notify you to refrain from using the name of the Commission or of any of its officers or members in or connected with any diploma, certificate, or other evidence of award for any exhibit or under special rule No. 27, until such time as the proposed award shall have been by you submitted to the Commission for approval, as provided in section 6 of the act of Congress and rule 6 of Article XXII of the general rules and regulations, which rules we hold to have the effect of law until modified or repealed by the consent of the Commission.

Respectfully, THOS. H. CARTER, President.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS,

President Exposition Company.

A formal acknowledgment of the receipt of the foregoing communication was received from the Exposition Company on November 30, 1904.

No reply has ever been made to the letter or the subject-matter thereof on the merits. The allegations therein contained of flagrant violation of the rules and regulations in the selection and organization of the juries are strongly supported by the records and the silence of the officials of the Exposition Company. The charges of fraud and corruption in connection with certain awards, referred to in the letter, have never been denied nor explained.

The fact that there was a disagreement between the National Commission and the Exposition Company regarding awards became known through the public press, and thereupon the files of the Commission were quickly supplied with letters from exhibitors charging fraud and favoritism, and asking for information as to the status of the awards in the event of certificates of award being issued without the approval of the Commission.

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.

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 circumstances, 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:

WASHINGTON, 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 circumstances 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 institution 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 advertisements 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.

On the 10th of November bids were opened by the committee on salvage. They were of very unsatisfactory character. Most of the bidders selected single exhibit buildings or small groups of minor buildings. The highest bid for all of the exhibit buildings opened that date was $50,000. One bid of $325,000 was made for "buildings, structures, salvage of all kinds, and all property owned by the Exposition Company." On the 12th of November the salvage committee rejected all bids. During the following two weeks the salvage committee held frequent meetings. Hearings were given by officers of the exposition to all persons desiring to negotiate for salvage. By wire and by mail persons and firms who might be interested were advised that the property was being offered for sale. Proposals were invited for all physical property of the company, except the intramural cars and equipments and the general service outfit.

The salvage committee waited for proposals in response to this invitation, covering the physical property generally, until nearly the end of November. Three bids were received. The highest was $420,000; the next highest was $300,000. After careful consideration and much negotiation with the various bidders, the salvage committee proposed to the highest bidder, namely, the Chicago House Wrecking Company, which had bid $420,000, to recommend the sale of the physical property to the board of directors, with the exceptions mentioned, for $450,000. This, after some delay, was accepted by the Chicago House Wrecking Company on the 30th of November, and was reported to the board of directors on the 13th of December, and was ratified unanimously.

The records and correspondence showing the proceedings throughout are on file in the office of the secretary, and are ready for inspection and investigation.

The allegations set forth in the letter of the National

Commission as having been made to that body and the answers to

be given to such allegations are:

First. That secrecy was observed in handling the bids for the

wrecking of buildings.

Answer. It was the judgment of the salvage committee that better results could be obtained if secrecy was observed, in so far that the amounts of bids were not made public until the sale was accomplished. The wisdom of this judgment was vindicated in the amount realized for the salvage when compared with the lower bids.

Second. That the Chicago House Wrecking Company was favored from the beginning.

Answer. This is utterly false.

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.

Answer. No higher bid was received either before or after the sum of $450,000 had been agreed upon to be recommended by the committee on salvage.

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.

Answer. No complete list was submitted to the Chicago House Wrecking Company or to any other bidder. The Exposition Company, through the salvage committee and the executive committee, with deliberate intent refused to furnish any list purporting to be complete.

Fifth. That a written offer of $400,000 cash, and more, if lists could be secured, was ignored.

Answer. No such offer was received.

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.

Answer. No such bid of $450,000 was received; the Chicago House

Wrecking Company did not make a bid 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.

Answer. This statement is not true. There had been no bid of

$450,000 on any terms when the sale was closed. The contract

provisions were superior to any made in the bids.

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.

Answer. The bond of $40,000 was not taken to secure the payment of the $450,000, or any part of it. The first payment of $100,000 was made on the signing of the contract of sale. The remaining $350,000 was secured adequately by a mortgage on the property covered by the bill of sale. The $40,000 bond was required to enforce other conditions of the contract, namely, those relative to the wrecking and removal of the property under conditions of leases upon which the property stood. A part of the contract required that property be kept insured for the benefit of the Exposition Company until all payments were made. The bond covered these provisions. The Chicago House Wrecking Company made its second payment of $100,000 on February 1. The third payment will be due March 15. The company holds a mortgage on the property to secure the remaining payments, and only releases the property to the Chicago House Wrecking Company as the payments are made.

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.

Answer. On the contrary, as the records show, the board was unanimous in approval of the contract of the sale and, as stated, there is no record anywhere of objection on the part of any director.

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.

Answer. The first specifications, probably those referred to in this paragraph, related only to exhibit buildings. Subsequently the salvage committee informed bidders when bids were taken on all of the physical property that the intramural cars and equipments were to be excepted, and also the property of the General Service Company, which was owned by the Exposition Company. Quantities of wire had been purchased under the contracts permitting return on a percentage of the price paid. As regards the iron piping, bidders were informed of the clause in the ordinance authorizing the use of Forest Park which declared that "sewers, drains, conduits, pipes, and fixtures shall become and be the property of the city." By reference to the contract of sale to the Chicago House Wrecking Company it will be observed that the company sells "subject to whatever rights the city of St. Louis may be entitled to in certain underground pipes, sewers, and conduits in Forest Park." Some of the fire apparatus was loaned or rented to the Exposition Company, and was not owned by it. Many things used by the Exposition Company were sold to it with the privilege of return, or with a contract to return at stipulated amounts or percentages. The exposition officers and the salvage committee answered inquiries, as far as were in their power, made by bidders regarding the property, but from first to last refused to furnish an itemized list. By reference to the contract of sale it will be observed that no list is contained therein, but that the company sells and transfers "the interest, or right, or ownership in or to any and all physical property purchased, constructed, or acquired by the said Exposition Company, excepting as hereinafter mentioned."

Eleventh. That according to an estimate made by several reputable contractors the property sold was of the reasonable value of $1,955,000.

Answer. The Exposition Company has no knowledge of such estimates. If contractors did place such estimates upon the value of the physical property they were singularly lacking in enterprise when they did not come forward with higher bids. The amount realized was the highest bid made for the property.

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.

Answer. The Chicago House Wrecking Company obtained no information that was not accessible to and obtainable by any other bidder.

Very respectfully,

WALTER B. STEVENS,

Secretary.

Hon. THOMAS H. CARTER,

_President National Commission,

Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

ST. LOUIS, March 7, 1905.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I send herewith, by direction of the executive committee, a reply to the letter from the Commission of February 28. President Francis is absent from the city, having gone last week to New Orleans. I think I should add something from my personal knowledge. Mr. Richey is well known to me, and has been for years. He must have been badly misinformed to have made such allegations as are contained in the letter. I have all of the minutes of the various meetings and a collection of correspondence which go to show that many of these allegations are without foundation. Some of them, I can see, are inferences drawn from misstatements of the facts and from misunderstandings of the real situation.

I have never so much as heard an intimation that any director of the company, or anyone else who knew of the transactions, protested against the sale or adversely criticised the amount realized. On the other hand, the general impression among directors and on the part of the public seems to be that the Exposition Company realized more than was to be expected. The salvage of the World's Fair in Chicago sold for $80,000, that of Omaha for $37,500, and that of Buffalo for $67,000.

Before the exposition closed the management had begun to dispose of salvage in a small way, but the results were very discouraging. It looked much as if the property of this exposition would go as had that of previous expositions, for a very small fraction of the cost. At one time the directors of the company thought it might be necessary to organize a company and carry the salvage through a series of years in order to realize on it. But the best that could be figured from such a course was from $300,000 to $350,000 for the same property sold to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $450,000.

The only persons who raised any question about the sale and the amount realized were two disappointed bidders. These bidders were given all of the time they asked. They were furnished information in reply to their inquiries. They could not be given lists of the property of the exposition because, after careful consideration of such lists, it was deemed inadvisable by the exposition to attempt a sale on that basis. It was the conclusion that more could be realized by selling all right and title to the physical property of the exposition. I believe that more was realized than would have been obtained on bids if an inventory had been furnished.

The Chicago House Wrecking Company was doing business on the grounds during the exposition and previous thereto. The officers of that company have been in the wrecking business for years. Looking forward to the time, they saved, as I happened to learn, clippings from the newspapers showing contracts let by the exposition; also clippings showing purchases of various kinds. In fact, for months they were gathering through outside sources all the information they could as to the character of the company's property. In this way they obtained their information as to this property. They were given no list from the company. They were given no advantage over other bidders. I know it to be a fact that the Exposition Company did all in its power to induce other bidders to come from other cities, and stimulated competition. The correspondence and telegrams passing through my hands show this. There was a great deal of property that the exposition had the use of and did not own. This applied to fire apparatus, to electric switch boards, to machinery, to street sweepers, to watering carts, and to a great variety of things that were of utility and were loaned by the manufacturers or dealers, who wished to have them in service for the advertising to be gained thereby.

The city is claiming, under the ordinance from which I have quoted in the other letter, the piping on that part of the ground included in Forest Park, and only to-day wrote asking to know when this pipe could be taken up by the city.

It will afford me pleasure to answer any inquiry or to forward to you any document relating to this salvage matter which you may desire to see.

Can you advise me how long you expect to remain in Washington?

Very truly, yours,

WALTER B. STEVENS,

Secretary.

Hon. THOMAS H. CARTER,

President National Commission, Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

Having been elected a Senator of the United States from the State of Montana, Mr. Thomas H. Carter, president of the Commission, resigned his office as member of the Commission on March 9, 1905. At a meeting of the Commission held on March 20, 1905, the following letter was received from Mr. Carter, and his resignation as president of the Commission was duly accepted:

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 9, 1905.

GENTLEMEN: Finding that my duties as United States Senator, assumed on the 4th of this month, will so far require my attention as to render it difficult to longer continue a member of the Commission, I have determined to hand my resignation to the president, and preliminary thereto I respectfully resign the position of president of the Commission.

In tendering my resignation I can not refrain from expressing to the Commission jointly, and to the members separately, my grateful appreciation of the unfailing confidence and cordial support with which I have been favored at all times by the members of the Commission, without exception.

It is questionable whether any like body of men, selected from the country at large, has ever acted more harmoniously in the discharge of any public duty.

With deep regret, and only from a sense of duty, I sever my

relations with the Commission, and in doing so wish each of my

associates on the Commission long life and prosperity.

Respectfully submitted.

THOS. H. CARTER.

The honorable LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C.

Mr. Carter also addressed a letter to the President of the United States, tendering his resignation as a member of the Commission, which reads as follows:

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 9, 1905.

SIR: My election to the Senate of the United States from the State of Montana imposes upon me duties which render it quite impracticable for me to devote the time and attention necessary to a proper discharge of my duties as a member of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission. I therefore respectfully tender you my resignation as a member of the Commission, and in doing so I thank you sincerely for the cordial and unfailing support and consideration you have always extended to me as a member of that body.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

THOS. H. CARTER.

The PRESIDENT,

Washington, D.C.

Mr. John M. Thurston was thereupon unanimously elected to succeed Mr.

Carter as president of the Commission.

At this meeting Mr. John D. Waite, of Lewistown, Mont., recently appointed by President Roosevelt as a member of the Commission to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Carter, appeared and took his place on the Commission.

At the same meeting the secretary of the Exposition Company requested the privilege of making a personal explanation with reference to the disposition of the salvage.

From his statement it appears that he was not connected personally with the transaction, which was conducted by a committee, of which the president of the Exposition Company was chairman. The secretary did not leave any written statement or explanation, but in general terms said the exposition officials were entirely satisfied with the amount of money received for the salvage; that it was more than they expected, and that they thought the result of the sale was a subject for congratulation.

Upon the suggestion of the Commission the secretary of the Exposition Company on March 23 addressed a communication to the Commission on this subject, of which the following is a copy: