Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission. Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission
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,