hird. That the exposition officials rejected higher bids than
that of the Chicago House Wrecking Company, so that the latter
might have further opportunity to raise its figures.

Fourth. That only a partial list of the property, which did not
include many valuable articles, was submitted to bidders outside
of the Chicago House Wrecking Company, and that a complete list
was refused other bidders.

Fifth. That a written offer of $400,000 cash, and more if lists
could be secured, was ignored.

Sixth. That a bid of $450,000, half cash, was presented to the
Exposition Company after the announcement of the sale of the
salvage to the Chicago House Wrecking Company 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.

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.

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.

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.

Eleventh. That, according to an estimate made by several
reputable contractors, the property sold was of the reasonable
value of $1,955,000.

Twelfth. That the Chicago House Wrecking Company, through undue
advantage, obtained inside information as to the extent and
value of the property to be sold, and thereby, to the material
injury of the United States, secured a contract with the
Exposition Company insuring a profit of more than $1,000,000.

The above matters have been called to the attention of the
Commission by Mr. Frank E. Richey, attorney and counselor at
law, Oriol Building, Sixth and Locust streets, St. Louis, Mo.,
who accompanies his statements with copies of the contract and
specifications referr