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
sustaine