REPORT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY. Ill 



vidiial exhibits, each illustiatiuu', under the control of the Department 

 itself, its functions and administrative methods. 



The Chicago board, apparently rather through the decisions of the 

 Treasury Department tlian by reason of the intent of the law, has been 

 forced into (piite another position, lender tlie provision of section 18, 

 which subjects the ''itemized accounts and vouchers" to the approval 

 of the Secretary of the Treasury, jurisdiction in detail over the affairs 

 of the board was assumed by officials of that Department, and their 

 rulings have formed, of necessity, the dominant standard of judgment. 

 l>y virtue of an early ruling based u])on the provision of section 10, 

 which empowers the heads «»f the I'^xecutive Departments and the 

 directors of the Smithsonian Institution and National Museum, and of 

 the U. S. Fish Commission, to designate the articles which should com- 

 pose the contributions of their respective branches, the initiative in 

 respect to each article exhibited was vested in the heads of the 

 branches. The jjower of final approval was retained in the Treasury, 

 the board of management serving as an intermediary between the two 

 authorities. 



It is held by the Treasury that the board as a whole is responsible 

 for the exhibit as a whole, and that the relation of the heads of the 

 Executive Departments to the board and to their own individual repre- 

 sentatives is advisory rather than supervisory. The tendency of this 

 is to place the members of the board at times in embarrassing positions, 

 and in at least one instance has resulte<l in a complete alienation of the 

 Exposition work of a department from the Department itself, and an 

 open hostility betweeii the head -of the Department and his representa- 

 tive. Notliing could be more unfortunate, and nothing could more 

 thoroughly prevent the preparation of an exhibit which would l>e 

 thoroughly representative. 



In connection with this policy has grown up also a disposition on the 

 j)art of certain elements of the board organization to criticise the con- 

 duct of the re[)resentatives of the Departments, and to attempt to 

 control their action under the plea of " securing harmony and prevent- 

 ing duplication." The outcome has been far from satisfactory, when 

 contrasted with tlie direc% business-like, and less complicated methods 

 followed by previous boards of maimgement. 



The appropriation of an aggregate sum by Congress, instead of a 

 special appropriation to each Department, has also heen a cause of 

 embarrassment. It is (piite imi)ossible for ten men, representing ten 

 distinct interests, to divide such a sum among themselves equitably 

 and to the satisfaction of all. Still more perplexing, especially in the 

 early days of the prei)aration for the Exi)Ositiou, were the joint claims 

 upon the same appropriation of the Government board of management 

 and of the National Commission. This was fcutunately settled by 

 Congress in 1S1>1, but the un<'ertainty as to the amount of money avail- 

 able during the first year of preparation was not the least serious of 



