The specifications further required—­

That a surety company’s bond for an amount equal to the amount of contract must also be given to the Exposition Company by the said contractor to protect the said Exposition Company from loss during the execution of the work and for faithful performance contract—­

while the contract referred to shows that the Chicago House Wrecking Company furnished a bond in the small sum of $40,000, or less than one-tenth the amount required by the specifications.

From the above it is my belief that the Chicago House Wrecking Company was shown favoritism and that they were favored from the beginning of the deal.

I was never furnished a full list of the property to be disposed of by the Exposition Company.  I personally requested a list two or three times, as did Mr. Dunphy, but we were unable to get one.  Had I been furnished a list of the property that I learn has since been turned over to the Chicago House Wrecking Company under their contract I would have gladly bid $800,000, and would have made a very handsome profit on the deal at that price.

I consider the value of all the property turned over to the Chicago House Wrecking Company on November 30 was more than $1,000,000.

I consider the manner in which the bids were handled was very irregular and not the usual custom in that the bids were opened in secret and not in the presence of the bidders, as requested by a majority of the bidders present, but as requested by Mr. Abraham Harris, who represented the Chicago House Wrecking Company.  This is not the customary procedure when bids are called for by the city or the Government.

From what I saw there in the anteroom and in the presence of the salvage committee the several times we were there I am convinced that the Chicago House Wrecking Company was furnished inside information and that they were shown favoritism.

Mr. W.B.  Stevens, the secretary of the Exposition Company, was not present in the committee room at any time while I was there talking over the bids and he does not know what was going on in there, except what has been told him and what he has gained from the papers he handled.

The contract between the Exposition Company and the Chicago House Wrecking Company, which is of record in St. Louis, bears date of November 30, 1904, while I note by a letter dated March 7 and signed by Mr. W.B.  Stevens, he states the contract was not closed until December 13, 1904, on which date the board of directors of the exposition met.  This was eight days after my letter of December 5 was delivered to Mr. Stevens in person by Mr. Ranstead.

If the sale of the exposition buildings and the property to be disposed of had been properly advertised there would have been much more competition in the bidding.  If a list of all the property to be disposed of had been furnished the bidders much higher bids would have been made.  If the property had been sold at public auction, building for building, and other property in detail, so anyone could have bought what he wanted and had use for, I am confident that the Exposition Company would have received more than a million and a half dollars.