You will recall that this interview between us was at your suggestion and intended, we supposed, as an answer to our communication of the 18th of October, in which we had demanded arbitration on this very question. You say in your second letter of the 4th instant that "It was our understanding that before official notification to exhibitors a list of awards of the superior jury would be furnished by the secretary of said jury to the Commission and also to this company for their information and for the purpose of giving the Commission and this company an opportunity to call the attention of the jury, or the committee of five now acting as such, to any errors which the Commission or this company might discover, so that the same might be considered and corrected before giving official notification to the exhibitors." We can not understand where you could have gotten that understanding. I know that there was nothing said about the National Commission having a list submitted to it for any other purpose than the purpose of approval or disapproval. We never asked for a list for information, nor was anything ever said about referring anything back to the committee of five. What was ever said by the members of the National Commission then present to indicate to you that we withdrew or abandoned our demand for arbitration if the right of approval or disapproval was not accorded the National Commission? And if nothing was said by us evidencing such an abandonment of the demand, what answer have you ever made to such a demand? If your conversation with the members of the National Commission in your office that day was not intended to make the impression on them that you assented to sending the awards to the National Commission for approval or disapproval, it was as misleading a conversation as I ever listened to, and both the other gentlemen of the National Commission who were present agree with me in this view. Right here let me suggest that in the future our written communications be answered in writing. We will then at least have a record in writing. We reiterate that we are not looking for trouble or work, but as the representatives of the Federal Government we do not propose, if we can prevent it, to acquiesce in having the awards of this exposition promulgated without our approval when we think the law devolves this duty upon us. If your second letter of the 4th instant, in which you state your understanding, is the course your company proposes to take about this matter, we reiterate our demand for arbitration as contained in our letter of October 18. We suppose it will not be contended that we have lost the right of arbitration. We insist that there be no official promulgation of the action of the superior jury until such arbitration shall have been concluded.