| Sept. 6 | Sept. 12 Netherlands | Aug. 23 | Aug. 26 Nicaragua | do | Do.  Porto Rico | Aug. 26 | Aug. 30 Portugal | Aug. 24 | Aug. 22 Russia | Aug. 31 | Sept. 1 Sweden | Aug. 12 | Aug. 19 | Sept. 3 | Sept. 13 Siam | Aug. 12 | Aug. 18 Venezuela | Aug. 16 | Do. | Sept. 1 | Sept. 2 ------------------------------|------------|------------- re>

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.

Disregard of the rules and regulations in this behalf not only defeated the purpose of the law in providing for the exercise of the powers