Answer.  No such bid of $450,000 was received; the Chicago House
    Wrecking Company did not make a bid for $386,000.

Seventh.  That the contract was eventually given to the Chicago House Wrecking Company for $450,000, with contract provisions inferior to the former $450,000 bid made by a party outside the Chicago House Wrecking Company.

    Answer.  This statement is not true.  There had been no bid of
    $450,000 on any terms when the sale was closed.  The contract
    provisions were superior to any made in the bids.

Eighth.  That the contract with the Chicago House Wrecking Company does not adequately protect the Government, the city of St. Louis, and the stockholders, the $40,000 bond being out of all proportion to the size of the sale.

Answer.  The bond of $40,000 was not taken to secure the payment of the $450,000, or any part of it.  The first payment of $100,000 was made on the signing of the contract of sale.  The remaining $350,000 was secured adequately by a mortgage on the property covered by the bill of sale.  The $40,000 bond was required to enforce other conditions of the contract, namely, those relative to the wrecking and removal of the property under conditions of leases upon which the property stood.  A part of the contract required that property be kept insured for the benefit of the Exposition Company until all payments were made.  The bond covered these provisions.  The Chicago House Wrecking Company made its second payment of $100,000 on February 1.  The third payment will be due March 15.  The company holds a mortgage on the property to secure the remaining payments, and only releases the property to the Chicago House Wrecking Company as the payments are made.

    Ninth.  That the sale of the salvage to the Chicago House
    Wrecking Company was consummated over the protests of some of
    the directors of the Exposition Company.

Answer.  On the contrary, as the records show, the board was unanimous in approval of the contract of the sale and, as stated, there is no record anywhere of objection on the part of any director.

Tenth.  That the specifications were misleading, in that one item of copper wire, valued at $650,000, was omitted; also 5,000 electric lights, 5,000 tons of iron piping, 3,500 tons of other piping, the railway system on the exposition grounds, the fire apparatus, etc., were omitted.

Answer.  The first specifications, probably those referred to in this paragraph, related only to exhibit buildings.  Subsequently the salvage committee informed bidders when bids were taken on all of the physical property that the intramural cars and equipments were to be excepted, and also the property of the General Service Company, which was owned by the Exposition Company.  Quantities of wire had been purchased under the contracts permitting return on a percentage