aud, 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