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