Chapter XVI: Section 11: of the act of Congress, approved March 3, 1901, (2)

In paragraph 15 of said rules and regulations it is provided
that if for any reason an award is not satisfactory to an
exhibitor he may file notice to that effect with the president
of the superior jury within three days after the official
notification of the award; this notice shall be followed within
seven days by a written statement setting forth at length his
views as to wherein the award is unjust. We see now that the
superior jury has been disbanded within three or four days after
most of the exhibitors received their official notification,
thus cutting off the opportunity of exhibitors who were
dissatisfied with the awards to present their cases as provided
for by the rules.

We are also informed that instead of the superior jury hearing
any protests or complaints of the awards, these were referred to
subboards or subjuries made up in the main of jurors who had
been brought up by the chiefs from the various group juries to
the superior jury by the methods heretofore described.

We have also been informed by a gentleman who attempted to make
a protest and get a hearing before these subcommittees so
organized with the superior jury that he was informed he could
only make his complaint to the chief of the department from
which the exhibit referred to came, and when one chief was
approached he said he would not permit the matter complained of
to be investigated by the superior jury. He then appealed to the
full superior jury to hear him, and he was informed that they
had agreed that no one should be heard. So that it occurs to us
that the thing we sought to warn you against has been
practically accomplished, and the assurance given us that the
method by which these things might be corrected has been denied,
so that if we understand your contention that we were only to
approve the system of making awards instead of the awards we
claim the system that we approved has been violated from start
to finish.

We also find that some jurors who were appointed and approved
for certain departments had been transferred to other groups and
departments without the knowledge or approval of the National
Commission.

We are not thoroughly familiar with the character of all your
chiefs for integrity or impartiality, but from some things that
we have heard we are unwilling for some of them to make up a
list of awards without the National Commission's performance of
the duty that devolves on us by the act of Congress and by
section 6 of article 22 of the rules and regulations of the
Louisiana Purchase Exposition, adopted in pursuance of an act of
Congress of the United States, and we again wish to protest as
we have had occasion to do several times before, against the
apparent disposition on the part of the local company to ignore
the National Commission, and disregard the powers vested in this
body by the act of Congress, under which this exposition is
held.

We see from the papers that your company, without any reference
to the National Commission, is proceeding to publish the list of
awards made as heretofore described in this communication. We
wish to enter a protest against this being done, and to inform
you that under section 4 of the act of Congress a board of
arbitration is provided for, "to whom all matters of difference
arising between the Commission and said company concerning the
administration, management, and general supervision of said
exposition, including all matters of difference arising out of
the power given by this act to the said company, or to the said
National Commission to modify or approve any act of the other of
the two bodies, shall be referred for determination," and to
notify you that we insist upon such arbitration if your company
insists upon its refusal to submit these awards to the National
Commission for approval.

The matters to be submitted to said arbitration board are as
follows:

First. The right of the National Commission to have submitted
for its approval the awards found under the jury system and
ready to be promulgated by the superior jury.

Second. If our contention as to our rights in this matter be
found by said board of arbitration against us, then as to
whether or not the rules and regulations adopted by the local
company and the National Commission governing the system of
awards have been so complied with as to bind the National
Commission to any approval of the system by which the awards
have been made.

Third. Whether or not, under the rules and regulations, it is
necessary for the president of the National Commission to sign
the diplomas or certificate of awards; and if so, can his name
be put on such diplomas or certificates without his consent.

We trust any further announcement of the awards of the superior
jury may be withheld until this matter shall have been
arbitrated.

Respectfully,

THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION COMMISSION,
JOHN M. ALLEN, _Acting President_.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS,
_President Exposition Company, Building_.

A formal acknowledgment of this letter was received from Secretary Stevens, with the advice that the same had been placed before the executive committee for consideration.

At about this time there appeared in several St. Louis newspapers advertisements of prominent firms of St. Louis, setting forth the alleged fact that they had been awarded grand prizes on their exhibits, and in connection with such advertisements was displayed a cut of an official award ribbon, bearing the facsimile signature of the president, the director of exhibits, the secretary of the Exposition Company, and the chief of the department in which the exhibit was made.

The fact that the awards were being advertised broadcast in this manner before they had been approved by the Commission was called to the attention of President Francis by Mr. Allen, acting president, by a letter under date of November 4, as follows:

NOVEMBER 4, 1904.

SIR: If the inclosed advertisement is published by authority of
the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, it seems to be
directly in conflict with the understanding had with the
National Commission that before awards be announced officially
they were to be submitted to the National Commission for
approval. This advertisement purports to be by authority of the
Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, signed by David R.
Francis, president, and F.J.V. Skiff, director of exhibits. No
final action on awards by the superior jury have been submitted
to the National Commission, but nearly all the exhibitors in the
exhibit buildings are advertising what purports to be the
official awards.

We most earnestly submit that this action on the part of the
exhibitors is in direct conflict with the law and with the
agreement had with you by the National Commission, and if it is
being done with the approval of your company, we desire again to
protest against it. We understood after our demand for
arbitration on the construction of the law as to the right of
the National Commission to approve or disapprove of awards, that
your company agreed to our contention, and that these awards
were to be submitted to us before being published. If your
understanding does not accord with ours, we again ask for
arbitration. If it does accord with ours, we insist that the
spirit of this agreement be adhered to.

Very respectfully,

JOHN M. ALLEN,
_Acting President_.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS,
_President Louisiana Purchase Exposition
Company, Administration Building_.

The following communication was received from President Francis, in reply to Mr. Allen's letter:

NOVEMBER 4, 1904.

DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of contents of your letter of this
date concerning the advertisement of the Brown Shoe Company of
their awards. It surprised me as much as it did you. I have
instituted inquiries, and as soon as I ascertain by whose
authority the announcement was put in the papers, I shall advise
you. Of course you know that the exposition authorities had no
knowledge of such an advertisement until it was given to the
public. These ribbons are sold by a concessionaire, who was
instructed weeks ago to sell none of them until the awards are
officially announced.

Very truly, yours,

D.R. FRANCIS,
_President_.

Hon. J.M. ALLEN,
_Acting President National Commission, St. Louis, Mo_.

Shortly after the receipt of the foregoing letter from President Francis another letter bearing the same matter was delivered to the Commission, as follows:

NOVEMBER 4, 1904.

DEAR SIR: Since writing you a hurried note this morning, I have
read your letter more carefully, and desire to state in addition
that, referring to that portion of your letter relating to what
you term an "agreement" between this company and the National
Commission that no award can be made without being approved by
the Commission, I beg to say I am not advised of such an
agreement or understanding having been made. It was our
understanding that, before official notification to exhibitors,
a list of the awards made by the superior jury would be
furnished by the secretary of said jury to the Commission and
also to this company for their information and for the purpose
of giving to the Commission and to this company an opportunity
to call the attention of the jury (or the committee of five now
acting as such) to any errors which the Commission or this
company might discover, so that the same might be considered and
corrected before giving official notification to the exhibitors.
My understanding is that the committee of five are sending these
lists as fast as its clerical force can make them out.

Yours, truly,

D.R. FRANCIS,
_President_.

Hon. JOHN M. ALLEN,
_Acting President National Commission_.

On November 5, Mr. Allen addressed another communication to President Francis, as follows:

NOVEMBER 5, 1904.

SIR: The National Commission is in receipt of your two letters
of the 4th instant, in reply to one of same date sent to you.
The first of the two letters recognizes our contention. Your
second letter is one of the most surprising communications we
have ever had from the local company. You seem to have mended
your hold after your first letter of the 4th instant and for
some reason repudiated what Mr. Miller, Mr. Betts, and the
writer clearly understood to be an acquiescence in and an
agreement to the contentions as to the rights of the National
Commission contained in our letter to you of October 18. We
inclose herewith a copy of said letter of the 18th instant for
the purpose of refreshing your memory without the necessity of
looking it up.

You will see that in that letter we defined the contention of
the National Commission as to its right to approve or disapprove
of the awards of the juries, and it concludes with a demand for
arbitration unless this right is conceded by your company.

You will remember that instead of answering this letter you
invited Mr. Betts and the writer into your office, where we sent
for Mr. Miller, to discuss this question. You should remember
that when you broached this subject the writer said to you, "We
are not looking for work, nor are we looking for trouble, but we
think Congress has imposed this duty of approving and
disapproving these awards on us, and we will not shirk it."
There was considerable discussion in your office that day, but
no intimation from you or anyone else that there was still
opposition to our contention. You went on to say that the lists
that you were getting out were not official in any sense and
would not be until we said so.

You will recall that this interview between us was at your
suggestion and intended, we supposed, as an answer to our
communication of the 18th of October, in which we had demanded
arbitration on this very question. You say in your second letter
of the 4th instant that "It was our understanding that before
official notification to exhibitors a list of awards of the
superior jury would be furnished by the secretary of said jury
to the Commission and also to this company for their information
and for the purpose of giving the Commission and this company an
opportunity to call the attention of the jury, or the committee
of five now acting as such, to any errors which the Commission
or this company might discover, so that the same might be
considered and corrected before giving official notification to
the exhibitors." We can not understand where you could have
gotten that understanding. I know that there was nothing said
about the National Commission having a list submitted to it for
any other purpose than the purpose of approval or disapproval.
We never asked for a list for information, nor was anything ever
said about referring anything back to the committee of five.
What was ever said by the members of the National Commission
then present to indicate to you that we withdrew or abandoned
our demand for arbitration if the right of approval or
disapproval was not accorded the National Commission? And if
nothing was said by us evidencing such an abandonment of the
demand, what answer have you ever made to such a demand? If your
conversation with the members of the National Commission in your
office that day was not intended to make the impression on them
that you assented to sending the awards to the National
Commission for approval or disapproval, it was as misleading a
conversation as I ever listened to, and both the other gentlemen
of the National Commission who were present agree with me in
this view.

Right here let me suggest that in the future our written
communications be answered in writing. We will then at least
have a record in writing.

We reiterate that we are not looking for trouble or work, but as
the representatives of the Federal Government we do not propose,
if we can prevent it, to acquiesce in having the awards of this
exposition promulgated without our approval when we think the
law devolves this duty upon us. If your second letter of the 4th
instant, in which you state your understanding, is the course
your company proposes to take about this matter, we reiterate
our demand for arbitration as contained in our letter of October
18. We suppose it will not be contended that we have lost the
right of arbitration. We insist that there be no official
promulgation of the action of the superior jury until such
arbitration shall have been concluded.

Awaiting your early reply,
Very respectfully,

JOHN M. ALLEN,
_Acting President_.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS,
_President Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company,
Administration Building_.

Under date of November 8, President Francis replied to the foregoing letter as follows:

NOVEMBER 8, 1904.

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:

NOVEMBER 11, 1904.

DEAR SIR: After consulting Judge Boyle I find that the
suggestions you have presented for a finding by the board of
arbitration will be acceptable to both of us if the following
amendments are made:

First. 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 awards."

Second. Omit entirely the third clause.

We are of the opinion that ample provision is made in the rules
and regulations for having any fraud or fraudulent conduct on
the part of any subordinate jury or juror fully considered and
determined by appeal to the superior jury, and that no further
precaution or provision is needed unless the conduct of the
superior jury is shown to have been fraudulent.

Our purpose in striking out the third clause is that a charge of
fraud against the superior jury should be made only when
supported with the character and dignity pertaining to the
Exposition Company or the National Commission, and that the
provision made in the third clause for affidavits is wholly
unnecessary because the charge would not be made by either of
those bodies except upon such evidence as they would be
satisfied warranted making the charge.

Yours, very truly,

CHAS. W. KNAPP,
_Member Board of Arbitration_.

Hon. JOHN M. THURSTON,
_Member Arbitration Board, National Commission._

On November 12, 1904, the Commission addressed the following communication to the President of the Exposition Company, forbidding the use of the signature of the president of the Commission to any certificate of award until the matter at issue was determined.

NOVEMBER 12, 1904.

SIR: Your letter of November 8 received and contents noted. The
statements contained therein as to what occurred in your office
on the 19th of October in your interview with Mr. Betts, Mr.
Miller, and the writer do not accord with the distinct
recollection or understanding of any of the three parties
mentioned.

I am glad to know that our communications will hereafter be in
writing, that these misunderstandings may be avoided. The
National Commission is in entire accord with this position, and
we will try and observe our part of this understanding.

The informal conferences between the members of the National
Commission and representatives of your company seem to have
resulted in no definite understanding, and the Commission
therefore insists that arbitration be had to determine the true
effect and meaning of section 6 of the act of Congress approved
March 3, 1901, as affecting the rights and duties of the
National Commission to approve or not approve the awards.

In the meantime and until this question is determined the
Commission can not authorize the use of its president's
signature on any certificate of award.

In any arrangement preliminary to the settlement of this
controversy the writer will be pleased to confer with your
arbitration committee at any time.

Very respectfully,

JOHN M. ALLEN,
Acting President.

Hon. D.R. FRANCIS,
President Exposition Company, Building.

After many futile efforts to reach an agreement as to the subject-matter to be submitted for arbitration, it became obvious to the Commission that it was the intention of the Exposition Company to ignore the right of the Commission to finally consider or approve the awards of the superior jury. Under these circumstances the president of the Commission was directed, on November 22, 1904, by resolution, to forward to the president of the Exposition Company a communication summing up the controversy and stating clearly the stand taken by the Commission.

The communication is as follows:

St. Louis, November 22, 1904.

Sir: To the end that an understanding may be reached as to
issues involved in correspondence between your company and the
National Commission, extending from the month of May, 1904,
almost to the present date, relative to the appointment of
jurors and the awarding of premiums, it appears desirable and
necessary that the law and the facts be briefly stated and the
relative position of your company and the Commission clearly
defined.

In so far as applicable to the subjects referred to, section 6
of the act of Congress making an appropriation for the
exposition, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1901,
reads as follows:

"That the allotment of space for exhibitors, classification of
exhibits, plan and scope of the exposition, the appointment of
all judges and examiners for the exposition, and the awarding of
premiums, if any, shall all be done and performed by the said
Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, subject, however, to the
approval of the Commission created by section two of this act."

Under and in conformity with the provisions of law above cited,
certain general and special rules and regulations providing for
an international jury and governing the system of making awards
were submitted by the company and approved by the Commission in
the year 1903.

The general rules applicable read as follows:

ARTICLE XXII.

AWARDS.