Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition CommissionLouisiana Purchase Exposition Commission
History
Final Report of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission
Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission
Louisiana Purchase Exposition (1904 : Saint Louis, Mo.)
On the morning of October 3 thirteen letters of transmittal
signed by you, bearing dates between August 31 and September 27,
were delivered to the Commission, inclosing twenty nominations
to fill vacancies in group juries, and on October 6 the
secretary of the superior jury delivered to the Commission what
purported to be a corrected list of group jurors who had
actually served. Thereafter, in your letters of October 17, 22,
and 24, delivered to the Commission on October 27, you
transmitted what you assume to be "a roster of those who served
as group jurors in the various departments of the exposition."
This last series of names transmitted by you does not agree with
the list delivered 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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account