d 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 und