the 144 groups of exhibits, that woman’s work, “in whole or in part,” might have a juror appointed by the board of lady managers to judge of its merits.

The director of exhibits, with much genial graciousness, threw up his official hands and said he was helpless, that not until the exhibits were placed could the groups that would admit of women jurors be determined, and that there would be women jurors appointed by the Exposition Company as well as by the board of lady managers.  He suggested that we look carefully through the 144 groups and use our “judgment” as to which groups would call for women jurors.

We asked the advisability of conferring with the heads of the different departments, and were told that the information must come through the director of exhibits.  We were told to remember that the list of women jurors must be limited to keep down the expense of the jury work.

    From this time until the 25th of July the board waited for the
    classified list.

By correspondence among the members of the committee of awards, by meeting of the same, and by suggestions from the entire board, a long list of names of women eminent for intellectual, artistic, material, and practical achievements was obtained from which to choose women jurors.  It seemed impossible for the committee to make a report to present to the board for acceptance until information in regard to the classified list had been obtained.

    Partial tentative reports were read at the March meeting, to
    report progress and secure suggestions.

At a meeting of the board held April 29 a list of 83 names for women jurors and their alternates was submitted by the committee and accepted by the board.  A motion carried to the effect that power to act was left with the committee, as the classified list had not been received from the Exposition Company and the committee’s use of “judgment” might be tempered with the blue pencil of the Exposition Company.

    The confirmation of names for jurors was made very
    comprehensive, as the board at that time did not expect to meet
    until after the jurors had served.

The president of the board was untiring in her efforts in behalf of the jury work of the board.  The chairman of the committee was called to St. Louis twice on the special work of the jury list, and the members of the board and committee by consultation with members of the National Commission, officials of the Exposition Company, and heads of departments, held out for what they considered the full rights of the nominating power of the board, with the hope of bringing American womanhood in touch, as near as possible, with the work of the exposition.

    The following communications indicate the progress made: 

    ST. Louis, July 22, 1904.