have heretofore been commissioned to
act be forwarded for consideration without delay. We are not
unmindful that free and full consideration of the names of
persons thus empowered to act without full authority will be
somewhat embarrassing in view of their having been employed for
a considerable length of time before the Commission will have
been advised of their designation by the company.

Yours, very respectfully,

Thos. H. CARTER,
_President_.

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

As indicated by correspondence hereinafter set forth, the company did
not present the names of jurors to the Commission on or before August 1,
and indeed did not advise the Commission of the names of many of the
jurors until long after the time had elapsed for the performance of
their duties.

After the group juries had performed their duties certain persons,
feeling aggrieved by the awards made, undertook to appeal to the
Commission for redress. The Commission disclaimed jurisdiction to
consider the matter until the awards were submitted to it for approval.
Upon inquiry growing out of these attempted appeals, it was ascertained
by the Commission that the Exposition Company questioned the right of
the Commission to inquire into or in any manner to pass upon the justice
or regularity of any award made. The company having submitted certain
proposed amendments to the rules and regulations, the Commission
undertook by further amendments to settle the question as to the right
of the company to refuse to submit awards made to the Commission for its
approval, as required by law. The right of the Commission to even
inquire into charges of fraud, bribery, or corruption in connection with
awards the company steadily denied and never conceded.

In the records of the Commission filed with this report will be found
charges under oath against a division chief, alleging that he was a
party to negotiations for a bribe of $2,000 to be paid on the awarding
of the grand prize to a certain manufactured article, and that when the
matter was brought to his attention his only explanation was that he had
declined to be the stakeholder or custodian of the money because of
possible criticism in case the transaction should become public. This
individual was a member of the group jury, a member of the department
jury of his department, and a member of the superior jury.

The Commission fel