Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Free Classic E-books

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

Part 4 out of 16

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 1.8 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

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.

Fourth. That only a partial list of the property, which did not
include many valuable articles, was submitted to bidders outside
of the Chicago House Wrecking Company, and that a complete list
was refused other bidders.

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

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

Answer. No such offer was received.

Sixth. That a bid of $450,000, half cash, was presented to the
Exposition Company after the announcement of the sale of the
salvage to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $386,000.

Answer. No such bid of $450,000 was received; the Chicago House
Wrecking Company did not make a bid for $386,000.

Seventh. That the contract was eventually given to the Chicago
House Wrecking Company for $450,000, with contract provisions
inferior to the former $450,000 bid made by a party outside the
Chicago House Wrecking Company.

Answer. This statement is not true. There had been no bid of
$450,000 on any terms when the sale was closed. The contract
provisions were superior to any made in the bids.

Eighth. That the contract with the Chicago House Wrecking
Company does not adequately protect the Government, the city of
St. Louis, and the stockholders, the $40,000 bond being out of
all proportion to the size of the sale.

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

Ninth. That the sale of the salvage to the Chicago House
Wrecking Company was consummated over the protests of some of
the directors of the Exposition Company.

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

Tenth. That the specifications were misleading, in that one item
of copper wire, valued at $650,000, was omitted; also 5,000
electric lights, 5,000 tons of iron piping, 3,500 tons of other
piping, the railway system on the exposition grounds, the fire
apparatus, etc., were omitted.

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

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

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

Twelfth. That the Chicago House Wrecking Company, through undue
advantage, obtained inside information as to the extent and
value of the property to be sold, and thereby to the material
injury of the United States secured a contract with the
Exposition Company insuring a profit of more than $1,000,000.

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

Very respectfully,
WALTER B. STEVENS,
_Secretary_.

Hon. THOMAS H. CARTER,
_President National Commission,
_Louisiana Purchase Exposition_.

ST. LOUIS, _March 7, 1905_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly, yours,
WALTER B. STEVENS,
_Secretary_.

Hon. THOMAS H. CARTER,
_President National Commission,
Louisiana Purchase Exposition_.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 9, 1905_.

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

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

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

With deep regret, and only from a sense of duty, I sever my
relations with the Commission, and in doing so wish each of my
associates on the Commission long life and prosperity.

Respectfully submitted.
THOS. H. CARTER.

The honorable LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION COMMISSION,
_Washington, D.C._

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

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 9, 1905_.

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

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
THOS. H. CARTER.

The PRESIDENT,
_Washington, D.C._

Mr. John M. Thurston was thereupon unanimously elected to succeed Mr.
Carter as president of the Commission.

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

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

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

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

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.

Tenth. That the specifications were misleading, in that one item
of copper wire, valued at $650,000, was omitted; also 5,000
(500,000) electric lights, 5,000 tons of iron piping, 3,500 tons
of other piping, the railway system on the exposition grounds,
the fire apparatus, etc., were omitted.

Answer. The Exposition Company purchased under contract with the
American Steel and Wire Company, dated April 3, 1902, copper
wire to the amount of $320,160.33. The estimated salvage under
this contract as furnished by the electrical engineer of the
Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company on or about November 14,
1904, was $121,753.68. Of this estimated salvage the sum of
$46,700 was based on the presumption that the Exposition Company
could sell in the open market the copper wire in its storehouse
that had never been used. The contract with the American Steel
and Wire Company, as read to the National Commission, provided
that wire in good condition should be taken back by the American
Steel and Wire Company at 55 per cent of its original cost.
Owing to changes in the head of the electrical department, Mr.
Rustin being compelled to give up his position on account of
sickness, and owing to changes made in the plans for electric
lighting, the Exposition Company at the opening was in
possession of this quantity of unused wire, estimated in the
salvage to be worth $46,700, if sold at the market value, but
worth to the Exposition Company $23,860 if it was returned to
the American Steel and Wire Company under its contract at 55 per
cent of the original cost. The Exposition Company claimed that
this unused and unpacked wire should not be returned under the
contract and endeavored to sell it. The company was prevented
from making sale by an injunction taken out by the Chicago House
Wrecking Company. The Wrecking Company had purchased the Steel
and Wire Company's rights of salvage under the contract of April
3, 1903. This injunction was pending in court at the time the
sale of salvage was negotiated in November. If the contention of
the Chicago House Wrecking Company was sustained it would have
reduced the estimated salvage on the copper wire to $97,893.68.
The purchase of the general salvage by the Chicago House
Wrecking Company ended the injunction proceedings. Copies of the
contract with the American Steel and Wire Company and of the
contract between the American Steel and Wire Company and the
Chicago House Wrecking Company, which are of record in the
office of the recorder of St. Louis City and in the office of
the county clerk of St. Louis County, will be forwarded to the
National Commission if desired. The reason that the copper wire
could not be included in the original specifications was the
pending injunction proceedings.

The Exposition Company purchased electric light bulbs referred
to in the tenth allegation, of different sizes and under
different contracts, to the amount of $65,688. The estimated
value of lamps not used at the time of the close of the fair was
$16,890.

As regards the fire-fighting apparatus it may be explained that
most of this material was procured by the exposition on a rental
or loan basis. The Exposition Company owned one second-hand La
France fire engine, one second-hand Silsby fire engine, one fuel
wagon, and four combination chemical hose wagons. The total cost
of this apparatus to the Exposition Company was $5,325.

As regards the piping it can be stated that the Exposition
Company had no unused piping; the company did not buy pipe and
carry it in stock, but paid under contract for the pipe of
various sizes after it was laid in the ground at so much per
foot. This was the general practice by the company as regards
the piping. By reference to the letter of March 7, it will be
observed that the answer to the tenth allegation explains why
the company could only sell the piping "subject to whatever
rights the city of St. Louis may be entitled to in certain
underground pipes, sewers, and conduits in Forest Park." It can
be stated that this complication of title to the piping applied
to two-thirds if not three-fourths of all of the piping which
had been laid at the expense of the Exposition Company.

Because the copper wire was involved in the injunction
proceedings, because the electric lights constituted a minor
item as shown by the figures given above, because the piping was
involved in the construction of the city ordinance, because the
greater part of the fire apparatus was not owned by the
Exposition Company these items were not mentioned in the
original specifications.

As stated in the former letter, the intramural cars and
equipments were excepted from all offers of sale because the
company had already contracted for the sale of them.

After the first bids received under the specifications referred
to in the tenth allegation had been rejected because they were
in the opinion of the salvage committee wholly insufficient, new
bids were asked for all of the salvage of the company including
such right and title as it might have in the copper wire, in the
electric lights, in the iron piping, in the fire apparatus,
etc., with the exceptions of the intramural cars and equipments
and the property of the General Service Company. From that time
to the acceptance of the proposition to sell the Chicago House
Wrecking Company the negotiations proceeded on the plan that the
Exposition Company would sell all right, title, and interest to
its property with the exceptions of the cars and equipments and
property of the General Service Company.

Under the original specifications a certified check for one-half
of the amount of the bid was required and the terms were half
cash, but this requirement and these terms did not enter into
the negotiations following the rejection of the first bids. All
bidders showing a disposition to bid for right, title, and
interest of the Exposition Company to all salvage except as
stated were treated alike. Certified checks were not required on
these later bids. The negotiations were carried on verbally with
the bidders in turn, it being understood that the company would
insist upon what it deemed to be an adequate cash payment when
the contract of sale was concluded.

The secretary of the company is authorized to say that the
executive committee courts the fullest investigation of all
circumstances connected with the sale of the salvage and that if
the National Commission shall deem it necessary to include in
its report mention of the allegations contained in the letter of
the president of the Commission, dated February 28, the
committee asks that in justice to the Exposition Company such
investigation shall be made and the conclusions of the
Commission shall be given.

Very respectfully,
WALTER B. STEVENS,
_Secretary._

Mr. LAURENCE H. GRAHAME,
_Secretary National Commission, Washington, D.C._

Another communication bearing on the disposition of the salvage was
received from Mr. Stevens, as follows:

MARCH 23, 1905.

DEAR SIR: At a meeting of the National Commission on the 20th
the suggestion was made by a member of the Commission that the
answer to allegation third did not fully cover the ground. The
allegation and the answer were:

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.

The purpose was to answer that no higher bid than that made by
the Chicago House Wrecking Company was received either before;
at the time, or after the sum of $450,000 had been agreed upon
to be recommended by the committee on salvage.

On the 30th of November, early in the day, the Chicago House
Wrecking Company made a bid for $420,000. Up to that time and
during that day the next highest bid was under $400,000. Late in
the day, the 30th of November, the salvage committee, after
conference with all bidders who presented themselves, made the
proposition to the Chicago House Wrecking Company that if it
would raise its bid from $420,000 to $450,000 the committee
would recommend acceptance by the executive committee.

Respectfully,
WALTER B. STEVENS,
_Secretary._

Mr. LAURENCE H. GRAHAME,
_Secretary National Commission, Washington, D.C._

As a result of the inquiry instituted by the Commission into the
disposal of the salvage, statements supported by affidavits were
received and the same are appended to this report and marked "Appendix
No. 2."

Under the act of Congress the Commission had no power to undertake a
more thorough investigation of the charges and allegations made in
respect to the manner in which the salvage of the exposition had been
disposed of.

Without authority to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths,
or to compel witnesses to testify, any further attempt upon the part of
the Commission to inquire into the salvage matter would have been futile
and ineffective. If any further action is to be taken to ascertain
whether or not the financial interest of the United States has been
sacrificed by the manner in which the salvage was disposed of, the
inquiry must be conducted by some committee or official having these
powers, which the Commission did not possess.

A careful perusal of the law under which the Commission was appointed
will show the narrow limits of its legal authority, and the records
disclose the policy of the Exposition Company not only to confine the
Commission strictly within the narrowest limits of the law, but also to
question and resist the exercise of its authority in many instances
where the law seemed to place such authority beyond question.

From the very beginning the Commission sought to establish harmonious
relations with the company, and at all times refrained from contention
with its officials as to all matters not vitally affecting the interest
of the Government, and endeavored in every possible way to cooperate
with the company in promoting the exposition and insuring its success.

It is pleasant to turn from disagreements to achievements. From the
scientific, the artistic, and the industrial points of view the
exposition was a pronounced success. The munificent and unfailing
support given the enterprise by the Government of the United States
guaranteed that it would be a great exposition.

Considering the primary appropriation of $5,000,000, the loan of
$4,600,000, and the contributions by the direct appropriations and by
indirect means through the assignment of officers paid from other
appropriations, together with the exhibits from Districts, Territories,
and dependencies of the United States, and for the Government exhibit,
the aggregate contributions, direct and indirect, to the success of the
fair approximated substantially $15,000,000 on the day the gates were
opened to the public.

In addition to this proclamations were twice issued by the President
inviting foreign nations to participate in the exposition; the consular
and diplomatic representatives of the Government were inspired to aid
the exposition to the extent of their ability, within the limits of
official propriety; the army transports and the vessels of the Navy were
generously employed in furtherance of the project, where such employment
was found consistent with duty. Never in history has any Government done
so much in aid of any like enterprise. With such support from the
Government failure was impossible under any rational management.

[Transcriber's note: The easiest way to explain the garbled nature of
the following paragraph, is that the first line beginning with St. Louis
is a misplaced duplicate of the third line below it, replacing some
other typeslug.]

Fortunately the construction of the main exhibit buildings was
placed by the directors of the Exposition Company in charge of two
gentlemen deserving of special mention on account of the devotion
and exceptional ability displayed by each. As chairman of the
committee on grounds and buildings, Mr. William H. Thompson, of
St. Louis, discharged the duty of director of works. To the united
ous devotion to the task assigned him. With rare ability and commendable
persistence Mr. Isaac S. Taylor, the talented architect of
St. Louis, discharged the duty of director of works. To the united
efforts of these gentlemen the exposition and the country are indebted
for the magnificent architectural creations which adorned the
exposition grounds. Their relations to the work of construction
and to the affairs of the company enabled them to act with a necessary
degree of self-reliance and independence on their own initiative.

Among the many contributions made by the Government of the United States
to the success of the exposition, the exhibit from the Philippine
Islands deserves marked attention. This exhibit was so extensive,
interesting, and unique that it became the center of predominating
interest. Through its various departments a most valuable and accurate
knowledge of the Philippine Archipelago was diffused, not only
throughout the United States, but throughout the world.

By a fortunate coincidence it occurred that the Secretary of War, who
had most to do with the marshaling of this exhibit, had been prepared
for the work by his experience as governor of the Philippine Islands.
Hon. William H. Taft, as president of the Philippine Commission, and
subsequently as governor of the Philippine Islands, manifested a
sympathetic interest in the condition of the people, the resources of
the islands, and in the proper adjustment of both to their new
relationship with the United States. About the time the exposition was
projected Governor Taft, whose long and faithful service in the
Philippines had endeared him to the inhabitants, was called by the
President to accept the portfolio of war. His familiarity with the
people and the resources of the islands proved of inestimable value in
the preparation of the representation and exhibits at the exposition.
Through his efficient Chief of the Insular Bureau, Col. Clarence R.
Edwards, the Secretary, with great zeal and effectiveness, addressed
himself to the task of securing appropriate representation for the
Philippine people.

The administrative work was placed in charge of Dr. W.P. Wilson, of the
Philadelphia Museum. A more appropriate selection of an executive
officer could not have been made. Industrious, painstaking, and devoted,
Doctor Wilson threw all his energy and superior ability into the task
assigned him.

In Dr. Gustavo Neiderlein and Mr. Edmund A. Felder, Doctor Wilson had
able and faithful lieutenants. Through the combined efforts of such
competent and devoted men the Philippine exposition was developed into a
revelation of world-wide interest.

The extremes of civilization found in the Philippine Islands were
exhibited upon the grounds. The industrial conditions existing in the
islands in their various stages of progress were clearly set forth. The
millions of visitors who were interested and instructed by this
remarkable exhibit must have been deeply impressed with the importance
and extent of our new possessions in the Orient.

It is quite impossible to compute the value to the American people of
this Philippine exhibit. In giving to the country the basis upon which
to form a just conception of the character and possibilities of our new
possessions the Philippine department alone fully justified the interest
of the nation in the Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

The official report of the Philippine exhibit, filed with the records of
the Commission, is replete with interest and will justify careful
perusal.

REPORTS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

The response of foreign governments and peoples to the invitation of the
President of the United States was in every way most gratifying. For an
adequate description of the manner and extent of foreign participation
in the exposition, reference must be made to the reports of the
respective commissioners to their governments, copies of which are filed
with this report.

The Commission, desiring to tersely review the exhibits of the various
countries, called upon their several representatives for a brief
statement of the nature and extent of their exhibits. The responses
received convey but a meager idea of the great display made, but a
perusal of the epitomized reports will serve to convey an outline of the
exhibits made and the buildings constructed.

Condensed summaries of these reports have been prepared and are
submitted as a part of this report, marked "Appendix No. 3."

REPORTS OF STATES, TERRITORIES, AND DISTRICTS.

Inspired by the example of the General Government, and stimulated by the
extent of foreign participation, in response to the invitation of the
President, the several States, Territories, and Districts of the United
States contributed to the success of this exposition in a far greater
degree than on former occasions of like character.

As in the case of foreign countries, the Commission called upon the
representatives of the various States, Territories, and Districts for a
brief statement of the extent and character of the exhibits made by
them. The reports of the representatives to the authorities by which
they were appointed have been collected as far as practicable and are
filed with this report.

Condensed summaries of these reports have been prepared and are
submitted as a part of this report, marked "Appendix No. 4."

THE BOARD OF LADY MANAGERS.

The board of lady managers appointed by the Commission proved themselves
eminently qualified to perform the exacting and comprehensive duties
assigned them. Their organization was one of the most popular and
successful instrumentalities of the exposition.

These distinguished and representative women of our country were quickly
recognized as organizers and leaders of the many public and semiofficial
entertainments and functions, which all must agree were so necessary and
contributed so greatly to the success of the exposition.

It is undoubtedly true that their efforts in enlisting the sympathy and
support of the women of the United States not only made possible an
adequate presentation and exploitation of woman's work and woman's
sphere, but also secured the attendance of thousands upon thousands of
the best people of the land who otherwise would have remained away.

It is not too much to say that the money appropriated for and expended
by the board of lady managers was, from the standpoint both of national
interest and financial success, one of the wisest expenditures made in
connection with the exposition.

This board of lady managers was fortunate in the selection of Mrs.
Daniel Manning as its president. Mrs. Manning, in addition to her
experience in public life and affairs, and her well deserved general
popularity, proved herself possessed of rare executive ability, and the
management of those features of the exposition coming under the
supervision and direction of the board won the respect and admiration of
the exposition officials and of all the representatives of our own and
other governments having connection with or participating in the
exposition.

It is but fair to say that this tribute of the Commission to the
efficiency of the board of lady managers is given not in compliment, but
in justice.

The vast amount of work performed by the lady managers and the delay in
the completion by the company of authoritative reports necessary to
enable the board to complete their final report to this Commission have
delayed the closing and presentation of this report by the Commission
beyond the period of six months from the close of the exposition.

The final report of the board of lady managers is now presented in
connection with the report of the Commission, and is herewith filed,
marked "Appendix No. 5."

The Commission calls particular attention to the excellence and the
interesting features of the report of the board of lady managers, and
suggests that its publication and distribution as a document is
especially to be desired.

GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT.

The exhibit made by the Government of the United States will long stand
as monumental in the history of Government exhibits. Not content with
the exhibition of special features of governmental activity in the
various departments of the exposition, Congress provided for the
erection of a Government exhibition palace, which was confessedly the
most striking and successful architectural triumph upon the exposition
grounds.

The Government Building was located on an eminence at the eastern
termination of "Louisiana Way," the principal avenue on the exposition
grounds. From its commanding position all portions of the exposition
grounds could be seen. Within the building every department of the
Government was represented by an appropriate exhibit upon a liberal
scale.

This great Government exhibit was under the direction and control of a
board, consisting of the following-named gentlemen:

_Members United States Government Board_.--Mr. Wallace H. Hills,
Treasury Department, chairman; Mr. William H. Michael, Department of
State; Mr. John C. Scofield, War Department; Mr. Cecil Clay, Department
of Justice; Mr. John B. Brownlow, Post-Office Department; Mr. B.F.
Peters, Navy Department; Mr. Edward M. Dawson, Department of the
Interior; Mr. S.R. Burch, Department of Agriculture; Mr. Carroll D.
Wright, Department of Commerce and Labor; Dr. F.W. True, Smithsonian
Institution and National Museum; Mr. W. de C. Ravenel, Bureau of
Fisheries; Mr. G.W.W. Hanger, Department of Labor; Mr. Williams C. Fox,
Bureau of the American Republics; Mr. Roland P. Falkner, Library of
Congress; Dr. A.C. True, Agricultural Colleges; Mr. William V. Cox,
secretary; Mr. William M. Geddes, disbursing officer; Mr. C.S. Goshert,
clerk of board.

The members of this board cooperated in a united effort to install a
Government exhibit in every way representative and creditable. To their
success the millions of visitors bore cheerful witness in expressions of
unbounded satisfaction. The board was at all times harmonious within
itself, and it is pleasing to note that its relations with the National
Commission were always of the most cordial character. From the report of
the Government board a fair but an inadequate estimate may be formed of
the extent and brilliant success of this feature of the exposition.

Under the law the life of this Commission expires on the 1st day of
July, 1905. The Commission has delayed closing its final report to the
last day of its existence in the hope that before that time a full and
final report might be received from the Exposition Company.
Unfortunately, however, no such report has been received, and therefore
the Commission is unable to submit the same to the President.

The monthly financial reports of the Exposition Company have been
received up to and including the month of April, 1905, and have been
transmitted as received to the President in accordance with the act of
Congress.

After repeated and urgent requests for a complete report from the
Exposition Company the following final answer was received:

[Telegram.]

St. Louis, _June 17, 1905._
Hon. John M. THURSTON,
_President National Commission,_
_Portland, Oreg.:_

Think it will be several weeks before report of two divisions
can be completed, and several months before president's report
will be ready. Impossible to close up as rapidly as desired.

WALTER B. STEVENS,
_Secretary._

It will at least be seen that the Commission has exhausted all its
powers and made every effort possible to comply with the act of Congress
in the making and transmission of this, its final report, and the
failure to accompany this report by full and complete reports from the
Exposition Company is in no wise due to any lack of endeavor on the part
of the Commission.

According to section 3 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1901,
the National Commission was allowed the sum of "ten thousand dollars per
annum, or so much thereof as may be necessary," for the purpose of
defraying the clerical, office, and other necessary expenses of the
Commission. Including the year 1901 the amounts thus allowed aggregate
the sum of $41,923.36. The expenditures for the entire term of the
Commission's existence amount to $32,763.22. This includes an investment
of $952.16 in furniture, which has been delivered to the Secretary of
the Treasury.

Total unexpended balance reverting to credit of Exposition Company,
$9,160.14.

The expenditures made by the Commission from April 23, 1901, to June 30,
1905, are set forth in a statement, submitted herewith as Appendix No.
6.

This report can not fairly be concluded without commendatory reference
to the zeal and devotion of the people of the city of St. Louis toward
this great enterprise. With great generosity and hospitality their
beautiful homes were thrown open to visitors; constant and delightful
entertainment was provided, and there can be no doubt that the millions
who came to see the exposition took away with them abiding and
affectionate remembrance of the universal consideration and courtesy
shown them.

The directors of the Exposition Company, comprising ninety-odd
representative business men of the city, devoted time and attention to
the affairs of the exposition with unfailing interest and fidelity. They
not only contributed as subscribers to the stock of the Exposition
Company, but in cases of emergency volunteered advances from their
private fortunes and freely loaned their credit to the exposition.

The daily newspapers and other publications of the city were tireless in
their efforts to sustain the enterprise, and to set forth its unusual
attractions.

The residents of the Louisiana Purchase in particular, and the people of
the whole country in general, are indebted to the people of St. Louis
and the press of that city for the commendable and stupendous efforts
made in behalf of the exposition.

As a landmark in the world's progress the Louisiana Purchase Exposition
well deserves and will doubtless be accorded a conspicuous place in
exposition history.

Portland, Oreg., June 30, 1905.

THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION COMMISSION,
By JOHN M. THURSTON, _President._
The PRESIDENT.

APPENDIXES.

APPENDIX I.

REPORT ON ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

FROM INCORPORATION OF COMPANY TO APRIL 30, 1905.

The following is a copy of letter received from the firm of Messrs.
Jones, Caesar, Dickinson, Wilmot & Co.:

St. Louis, June 5, 1905.

DEAR SIR: We are duly in receipt of your telegram, reading as
follows: "Send statement liabilities Exposition Company to June
1, showing cost of restoring grounds and approximate cost of
matters in litigation," and beg to send you herewith a statement
of the estimated financial position of the Louisiana Purchase
Exposition Company, made up as at May 3, 1905, which we have
just received and which we understand has been approved by the
president of the Exposition Company. In his statement are
included the estimated future liabilities of the company,
including $200,000 for the restoration of Forest Park, and after
providing therefor there appears an estimated surplus of assets
of $467,211.45, subject, however, to possible liabilities on
suits and claims pending against the Exposition Company.

With regard to the estimate of $200,000 for the restoration of
Forest Park, it may be well to mention that the company is under
obligation to restore the park without any limit as to cost.
Moreover, the company has given the city of St. Louis two bonds
aggregating $650,000, which we understand is the amount of an
estimate made on behalf of the city of the probable cost of
restoration. Of the bonds given, one is for $100,000, secured by
guarantee of certain directors of the Exposition Company, and
the second for $550,000, secured as to $100,000 by personal
guarantees, and as to the balance by a mortgage on the Art
Building. We understand that an effort is now being made to
effect a settlement of the company's liability to the city, but
we are of course unable to say whether the estimate of $200,000
now taken into account will eventually prove sufficient or, if
not, by how much the estimate will be exceeded.

With regard to the suits now pending against the Exposition
Company, it is of course impossible to make any estimate of the
eventual liability to fall on the company.

We would call your attention to the note made in the statement
as regards the cash in trustees' funds and would point out that,
as the liability of the company as principal under the various
bonds is included in the statement of liabilities, this cash may
practically be regarded as an available asset. In other words,
if the cash is excluded from the assets, the liability falling
on the company under the various bonds should be correspondingly
reduced.

We should be glad to be advised whether there are any further
points in connection with this statement with which you would
desire us to deal, either by letter or in our final report, and
would add that, on hearing from you, we are prepared to send in
the signed report.

We are sending a copy of this letter to the secretary of the
Commission, in case it should not reach you at Portland.

Yours, faithfully,

JONES, CAESAR, DICKINSON, WILMOT &, CO.

Hon. J.M. Thurston
President Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission,
Portland, Oreg.

STOCK EXCHANGE BUILDING,
St. Louis, June 8, 1905.

GENTLEMEN: We beg to inclose herewith statement of receipts and
disbursements of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company from
the date of its incorporation to April 30, 1905, and to report
as follows on the audits which we have from time to time made,
and which together cover the whole of the period above
mentioned. For your convenience we propose to deal in this
report with the accounts for the whole period, and therefore to
repeat some of the comments contained in our previous reports.

Receipts.

Collections on account of sales of capital stock:
The total subscriptions to capital stock, as shown by the
treasurer's record, amount to ................ $5,294,490.00
Of this sum there had been collected, in cash,
to April 30, 1905 ................ $4,821,456.11

In a number of cases where the liability on
subscriptions was disputed, compromises
were effected, and under these compromises
the company waived claims amounting to 48,952.09
------------
4,870,408.20

Which would leave a balance uncollected on
April 30, 1905 of ............................. 424,081.80

We have been furnished with detailed statements of claims in the
hands of attorneys for collection, amounting in the aggregate to
about $25,000 more than the balance shown above as outstanding.
We are informed that this difference represents principally
receipts by the company which were credited as capital stock
collections, but in respect of which no certificates were ever
issued, though it is also due to some extent to clerical errors
in the treasurer's books, which have not yet been located and
adjusted.

The greater part of the balance now outstanding is expected to
prove irrecoverable, owing to deaths, removals, etc., of
subscribers, and to repudiations of liability in some cases. In
this connection, it may be mentioned that the number of
subscribers exceeded 20,000.

It should be added that it is not yet possible for the
treasurer's department to prepare any final report and
adjustment of the capital stock accounts, and that such a report
will necessarily be deferred until the whole, or at any rate the
greater part, of the suits now pending can be disposed of.

Proceeds of Sale of City of St. Louis Bonds.

In accordance with an amendment of the charter of the city of
St. Louis, approved at a general election held on November 6,
1900, the city sold, in the month of June, 1902, its 3-1/4 per
cent bonds to a par value of $5,000,000. The price realized for
these bonds was $1,000.01 for each $1,000 bond, and the proceeds
were turned over to the treasurer of the company on the
following dates:

June 26, 1902 ............................... $1,800,018.00
July 2, 1902 ................................ 3,200,032.00
-------------
5,000,050.00

A question arose whether the sale price included accrued
interest on the bonds to the date of sale, and as the city
officers and the purchasers of the bonds were unable to agree on
this point, the company, in order to avoid the delay and loss
that would have resulted from a second offering of the bonds,
decided to pay the accrued interest, amounting to $35,901.34.
The net realization to the company from the issue of the bonds
was therefore--

5,000 bonds, at $1,000.01 ................... $5,000,050.00
Less accrued interest paid .................. 35,901.34
-------------
4,964,148.66

United States Government Aid.

Of the total sum of $5,000,000 appropriated by act of Congress
approved March 3, 1901, there has been received by the company
the sum of $4,752,968.45, of which sum $250,000 was in the form
of souvenir gold coin. We understand, however, that amounts have
also been paid by the United States Treasury out of this
appropriation which have not been reported to, or included in
the accounts of, the company.

United States Government Loan.

Pursuant to an act of Congress approved February 18, 1904, there
was advanced to the company from the United States Treasury, by
way of loan, the sum of $4,600,000, repayable by semimonthly
installments, commencing June 15, 1904, and equivalent to 40 per
cent of the receipts from admissions and concessions during the
half month immediately preceding the date of payment, it being
provided that each installment after July 1 should amount to not
less than $500,000. The whole of this loan was duly repaid on
the following dates:

June 16 ................................. $195,057.04
July 1 .................................. 213,092.15
July 15 ................................. 500,000.00
August 1 ................................ 500,000.00
August 15 ............................... 500,000.00
August 31 ............................... 500,000.00
September 14 ............................ 500,000.00
October 1 ............................... 500,000.00
October 15 .............................. 500,000.00
October 31 .............................. 500,000.00
November 15 ............................. 191,850.81
------------
4,600,000.00

Loan on Security of Capital Stock Subscriptions and Premium on
Souvenir Coins.

On August 22, 1903, the company entered into a contract with the
Mississippi Valley Trust Company, the Lincoln Trust Company, the
Mercantile Trust Company, and the St. Louis Union Trust Company,
as trustees, under which it assigned all subscriptions which
were at that date wholly or partly unpaid, together with all
further subscriptions which might be received, and the premium
to be received on the sale of $239,000 souvenir gold coin, in
consideration of the sum of $600,000, with a provision that when
the trustees should have received the full sum of $600,000,
together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and
expenses of collection and management, they would reassign the
subscriptions and rights to the company.

Prior to the completion of the loan there was received by the
company from the sources assigned upwards of $162,000, and this
amount was deducted from the loan, making the net amount
received by the company $438,000. Payments were subsequently
made on account of this loan out of the receipts from the
above-mentioned sources, and on March 15, 1904, the balance then
outstanding of $92,515.25 was paid out of the general funds of
the company, in anticipation of receipts from the sources
assigned and with a view to effecting a saving of interest
charges.

It should be added that the subsequent receipts from capital
stock subscriptions have amounted to more than the amount
temporarily advanced out of the general funds of the company.

Admissions.

We have agreed the figures of receipts shown by the books of the
auditor and the treasurer with those of the admissions
department.

We have agreed the receipts from sales of tickets with the
ticket custodian's record, and have verified the tickets
appearing on that record as unsold. We have also satisfied
ourselves that the system in the admissions department was such
as to provide adequate safeguards for the collection by the
company of the admissions receipts derived from other sources.

It would appear that the total loss of the company in this
department through shortages of employees, counterfeit and
mutilated coins, etc., amounted to about $1,250, about one-third
of which is probably recoverable from the bonding company, so
that the final loss to the exposition will be very small.

The total receipts for admissions are distributed as follows:

Exposition period:
Admissions of individuals ................ $6,042,746.65
Vehicles ................................. 5,671.50
-------------
$6,048,418.15
Pre-exposition period .....................................
175,906.25
Post-exposition period ....................................
16,156.50

------------

6,240,480.90

The details of the attendance and revenue during the exposition
period are as follows:

--------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------
| Number. | Receipts. |Cents per
| | |admission
--------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------
Adults: | | |
General admission .................. | 11,180,996| $5,589,715.50 | 50.00
Season and other commutation tickets | 961,175| 291,827.00 | 30.32
Children: +-----------+---------------+---------
General admission .................. | 621,640| 155,634.25 | 25.04
Season and other commutation tickets | 40,805| 5,569.90 | 13.65
+-----------+---------------+---------
Total paid attendance ............... | 12,804,616| 6,042.746.65 | 47.19
Free: | | |
Adults ............................. | 6,480,267 | ............. | ........
Children ........................... | 409,972 | ............. | ........
+-----------+---------------+---------
Total exposition days ........... | 19,694,855| ............. | ........
Sundays (free) ...................... | 371,682| ............. | ........
+-----------+---------------+---------
Grand total ..................... | 20,066,537| ............. | ........
--------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------

It may be of interest to add that the attendance by months was
as follows:

-------------------------------+------------------------+---------+-----------
| Exposition days. | |
Date. +------------------------+ Sundays | Total.
| Paid. | Free. | (free). |
-------------------------------+------------+-----------+---------+-----------
April 30 and May ............. | 667,772 | 1,102,656 | 70,847 | 1,841,275
June ......................... | 1,382,865 | 1,016,281 | 49,373 | 2,448,519
July ......................... | 1,514,743 | 928,224 | 55,298 | 2,498,265
August ....................... | 1,992,248 | 1,096,498 | 45,477 | 3,134,223
September .................... | 2,683,511 | 968,262 | 52,182 | 3,703,955
October ...................... | 2,758,149 | 864,180 | 64,107 | 3,686,436
November and December 1 ...... | 1,805,328 | 914,138 | 34,398 | 2,753,864
+------------+-----------+---------+-----------
Total .................... | 12,804,616 | 6,890,239 | 371,682 | 20,066,537
-------------------------------+------------+-----------+---------+-----------

Concessions.

We have agreed the amount of collections reported by the
treasurer, together with the amount of bills still outstanding,
with the amount of bills rendered (after deducting allowances
and rebates), as reported by the concessions department.
Inasmuch as all bills originated in the concessions department
and the collections were made by the treasurer, we think this
reconciliation affords a satisfactory check on the receipts
reported by the treasurer.

We have also looked into the system in this department, and
believe that it was well calculated to secure, as far as
possible, the proper collection of revenues accruing due to the
exposition.

The net receipts of this department, as shown by its records,
are as follows:

Pike rentals .................................. $218,187.50

Concessions revenue:
Exposition period ............................ 2,812,995.59
Pre-exposition period ......................... 32,366.06
Post-exposition period ........................ 1,855.54
------------
3,065,404.69

The difference between this figure and the total of
$3,076,958.69, shown in the inclosed accounts, consists of
refunds of $15,554, which are treated in the statement as
disbursements, less $4,000 rents collected by the concessions
department, credited in the statement against the rent paid by
the company, as the latter practically acted only as agent in
the transaction.

Under the lease of the Catlin tract, on which the greater part
of the concessions were built, sureties were required, and for
the protection of these sureties and of sureties under other
bonds it was arranged that all ground rentals received from
concessions on the "Pike" should be paid into a special fund for
the purpose of securing such sureties against loss in respect of
the bonds given by them. Upon the books of the company,
therefore, the above figure of "Pike rentals" has been credited
to a separate fund account, together with an amount of $2,580.68
interest allowed on this fund.

There was withdrawn from this fund the sum of $100,000 on
account of payment of rentals of the tract, and the fund now
amounts to $120,768.18, as shown among the cash balances in the
inclosed statement.

The total earnings accruing due to the company
under concession contracts amounted to ...................
$3,803,724.53
Of this total there has been collected
(as above) the sum of ..................... $3,065,404.69
There was waived by the company under various
compromises the sum of .................... 434,204.36
And there still remain uncollected bills
amounting to .............................. 304,115.48
-------------
3,803,724.53

We have seen authorizations from the executive or concessions
committee for all the important compromises effected.

Intramural Railway.

We have agreed the receipts shown by the general books of the
company with the report of the manager of the railway. The
number of passengers carried and the amount of revenue
therefrom, by months, were as follows:

Date. Passengers Revenue.
carried

April 30 and May .......................... 295,152 $29,515.20
June ...................................... 861,409 86,140.90
July ...................................... 815,034 81,503.40
August .................................... 1,018,195 101,819.50
September ................................. 1,394,444 139,444.40
October ................................... 1,273,207 127,320.70
November and December 1 ................... 617,297 61,729.70

Total ..................................... 6,274,738 627,473.80

It is not possible to arrive at the cost of operating the
railway, as the power was furnished from the general power
plant, and the cost thereof can not be ascertained separately.

Service, Power, Light and Water, Transportation.

We have agreed the collections from these sources with the books
of the treasurer, and as regards the principal items we have
also agreed the accounts shown on the general books with those
of the departments in which the charges originated, subject to
some inconsiderable differences which are now being investigated
and will be adjusted by the company as soon as possible.

Music Department.

We have agreed the receipts shown by the auditor with the report
of the bureau of music.

The total receipts are made up as follows:

Music furnished German Tyrolean Alps Company .......... $67,220.25
Music furnished other parties ......................... 300.00
Receipts from admissions to Festival Hall and sales of
reserved seats ...................................... 77,078.23
Total earnings ...................................... 144,598.48

Book of the day: