Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission

Chapter XVIII: Section 16: of the special rules and regulations provides that (1)

Text size

"The work of the superior jury shall be completed on October 15,
1904, and, as soon as practicable thereafter, formal public
announcement of the awards shall be made. A final complete list
of awards shall be published by the Louisiana Purchase
Exposition Company, in accordance with the provisions of section
6 of the act of Congress, and section 6, Article XXII, of the
rules and regulations."

Sec. 27 of the special rules and regulations provides that--

"The diplomas or certificates of award for exhibitors shall be
signed by the president of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition
Company, the president of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition
Commission, the secretary of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition
Company, the director of exhibits, and the chief of the
department to which the exhibit pertains."

The foregoing rules clearly required the submission of the names
of all proposed jurors to the Commission for its approval or
disapproval prior to August 1, 1904, except as to nominations to
fill vacancies.

Realizing the necessity for the exercise of great care on the
part of the Commission in the discharge of its duties in the
premises, and the necessity for ample time for investigation as
to the fitness of persons and their willingness to serve as
jurors of awards, the Commission addressed you a letter under
date of May 18, 1904, reading as follows:

"SIR: Inasmuch as objections may be urged to the appointment of
certain persons upon juries of awards, it is the intention of
the National Commission to give public notice, allowing
reasonable time for the filing of any objections that may be
offered to the appointment of any individual on a jury. As this
proceeding will necessarily consume time, it is desirable that
the names of persons proposed for the respective juries be
transmitted to the Commission from time to time, as the
respective groups are completed by the company. It is believed
that final action can be reached in a more orderly and
satisfactory manner by taking up the names proposed for each
jury separately rather than to have the entire membership of all
the juries submitted for consideration simultaneously.

Yours, very respectfully,

THOS. H. CARTER,
_President."_

Our files do not show any recognition of this communication by
your company. A short time thereafter the Commission was
unofficially advised that certain jurors had been selected by
the company and were actually exercising the functions of judges
and examiners without notice to or approval by the Commission,
and on the 23d of May, 1905, this fact was duly called to your
attention by letter. Some time later the director of exhibits
appeared before the Commission and admitted that certain
examiners and jurors had been selected, without reference to the
Commission, to pass upon exhibits of a perishable character. In
three communications, each bearing the date of June 3, 1904, you
transmitted the names of the jurors referred to, and in the
light of the explanations made by the director of exhibits and
in your communications, the Commission, with many misgivings as
to the regularity of the proceedings and solely to avoid
embarrassment to the exhibitors and to the company, approved the
names submitted as of the date of their selection by the
company.

Aside from the few jurors thus irregularly selected for
emergency work, no jurors were nominated or submitted to the
Commission as required by the rules and regulations prior to
August 1.

The first list of group jurors was transmitted in your
communication bearing date of August 10, delivered to the
Commission about August 15, and the last list was transmitted to
this Commission on October 27.

The respective dates of your letter transmitting nominations of
group jurors and the respective dates of the receipt of the same
by the Commission are as follows:

------------------------------|------------|-------------
| |
| Date of | Date same
| letters of | letters
| Exposition | received
| Company. | by National
| | Commission.
------------------------------|------------|-------------
_Department._ | |
| |
Education and Social Economy | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
| Sept. 6 | Oct. 3
Art Department | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
| Aug. 23 | Aug. 26
| Aug. 26 | Aug. 28
| Aug. 27 | Aug. 29
Liberal Arts | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
Manufactures | Aug. 25 | Aug. 29
Machinery | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
| Aug. 16 | Aug. 20
| Corrected list
| Oct. 18.
| Sept. 7 | Sept. 10
Electricity | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
| Sept. 9 |
Transportation | Aug. 9 | Aug. 15
| Sept. 8 | Oct. 3
Horticulture | June 3 | June 6
| Aug. 18 | Aug. 19
| Aug. 23 | Aug. 24
Agriculture | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
| Aug. 13 | Aug. 22
| Aug. 31 | Sept. 3
| Sept. 2 | Do.
Fish and game | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
| Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
| do | Sept. 3
Mines and metallurgy | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
| Sept. 6 | Oct. 3
| Sept. 13 | Oct. 27
| Corrected list
| Oct. 18.
Anthropology | Aug. 10 | Aug. 15
Physical culture | do | Do.
Livestock | Aug. 4 | Aug. 19
| Aug. 11 | Aug. 18
| Sept. 1 | Sept. 14
Poultry | Sept. 26 | Oct. 3
Dogs and pigeons | Oct. 17 | Oct. 27
Rabbits | Oct. 22 | Do.
| |
_Country._ | |
| |
Austria | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15
| Sept. 7 | Sept. 12
Argentine | Aug. 23 | Aug. 26
Brazil | Aug. 17 | Aug. 22
| Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
Belgium | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15
Bulgaria | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
Ceylon | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15
China | do | Do.
| Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
Cuba | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15
Egypt | Aug. 14 | Aug. 18
France | Aug. 12 | Aug. 15
| Sept. 1 | Sept. 12
Germany | Aug. 24 | Aug. 26
| Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
| Sept. 1 | Sept. 12
| Sept. 4 | Do.
Guatemala | do | Do.
Great Britain | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18
| Aug. 24 | Aug. 26
| Sept. 1 | Sept. 12
Hungary | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
| Aug. 16 | Sept. 18
Holland | Sept. 8 | Sept. 15
Haiti | do | Sept. 12
India | Aug. 24 | Aug. 26
Italy | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18
| Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
| Aug. 26 | Aug. 30
| Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
| Sept. 7 | Sept. 12
| Sept. 16 | Sept. 17
Japan | Aug. 23 | Aug. 26
| Sept. 7 | Sept. 8
Monaco | Sept. 2 | Sept. 12
Mexico | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18
| Sept. 6 | Sept. 12
Netherlands | Aug. 23 | Aug. 26
Nicaragua | do | Do.
Porto Rico | Aug. 26 | Aug. 30
Portugal | Aug. 24 | Aug. 22
Russia | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1
Sweden | Aug. 12 | Aug. 19
| Sept. 3 | Sept. 13
Siam | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18
Venezuela | Aug. 16 | Do.
| Sept. 1 | Sept. 2
------------------------------|------------|-------------

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

MARCH 23, 1905.

DEAR SIR: By way of supplement to the letter forwarded to the
National Commission March 7, and in accordance with suggestion
made verbally by the Commission at the meeting Monday, March 20,
I submit this statement relevant to the tenth allegation on page
3 of the letter from President Carter, dated February 28, 1905.

Previous Next

Comments

Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition CommissionChapter XVIII: Section 16: of the special rules and regulations provides that (1)

0%34 min left in chapter