We are informed that the course adopted by the chiefs in the organization of the group juries was pursued when it came to the organization of the department juries, and in this way the chiefs, in violation of the rules, have selected the main body of the superior jury. We were also informed that the department juries were instructed to pass the matters that we think would properly belong to that body up to the superior jury; consequently the principal duty performed by the department jury was to enable the chiefs to select two members for the superior jury. We have been informed that the chiefs in some departments have taken it upon themselves to forbid the jurors from considering certain matters that were proper subjects for their consideration. In paragraph 15 of said rules and regulations it is provided that if for any reason an award is not satisfactory to an exhibitor he may file notice to that effect with the president of the superior jury within three days after the official notification of the award; this notice shall be followed within seven days by a written statement setting forth at length his views as to wherein the award is unjust. We see now that the superior jury has been disbanded within three or four days after most of the exhibitors received their official notification, thus cutting off the opportunity of exhibitors who were dissatisfied with the awards to present their cases as provided for by the rules. We are also informed that instead of the superior jury hearing any protests or complaints of the awards, these were referred to subboards or subjuries made up in the main of jurors who had been brought up by the chiefs from the various group juries to the superior jury by the methods heretofore described. We have also been informed by a gentleman who attempted to make a protest and get a hearing before these subcommittees so organized with the superior jury that he was informed he could only make his complaint to the chief of the department from which the exhibit referred to came, and when one chief was approached he said he would not permit the matter complained of to be investigated by the superior jury. He then appealed to the full superior jury to hear him, and he was informed that they had agreed that no one should be heard. So that it occurs to us that the thing we sought to warn you against has been practically accomplished, and the assurance given us that the method by which these things might be corrected has been denied, so that if we understand your contention that we were only to approve the system of making awards instead of the awards we claim the system that we approved has been violated from start to finish.