art 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 fr