"On the evening of Saturday, 13th of January, Mr. Marble called on Mr. Tilden, found him in receipt of the McCrary House bill with the amendments proposed by Mr. Hewitt, and a letter from Mr. Hewitt informing him that his counsel would be asked the next day about this bill. Mr. Tilden and Mr. Marble sat late into the night analyzing it. Mr. Tilden invited Mr. Marble to come the next day when Mr. Hewitt should be there to consider this bill, which was supposed to be the axis upon which the deliberations of the House were revolving. "Mr. Marble was therefore present on the following day, which was the 14th of January, when Mr. Tilden received from Mr. Hewitt his first information that the other measures had been abandoned, and that the subject upon which he wished to confer was the Electoral bill. "Before he read the new bill Mr. Tilden was told that the Democratic members of the Senate committee were already absolutely committed to this bill, and would concur with the Republican members of the committee in reporting it to the Senate whether the House committee should concur or not. "'Is it not rather late, then, to consult me?' said Mr. Tilden. "'They do not consult you,' replied Mr. Hewitt. 'They are public men and have their own duties and responsibilities. I consult you.' "The examination and analysis of the bill then proceeded. Mr. Tilden said, in the progress of the conference, 'I can't advise you to agree to the bill. I will advise you as to its details.' "In respect to the provision by which six judges were to be described in the bill and one of them to be eliminated by lot, Mr. Tilden said, emphatically, 'I may lose the Presidency, but I will not raffle for it.' "Mr. Tilden further said, if an arbitration were to be adopted, the tribunal ought to be fixed in the bill itself and not left to chance or intrigue. "He said, also, that if an arbitration were to be adopted, the duty of the arbitrators to investigate and decide the case on its _merits_ should be made mandatory and not left as a question of construction. "With both the vital points, the choice of men to compose the tribunal and a function to be performed by the tribunal, left at loose ends, he treated the whole thing as a sort of gamble. "In the course of the discussion Mr. Tilden said: 'If you go into a conference with your adversary and can't break off because you feel you must agree to something you cannot negotiate--you are not fit to negotiate. You will be beaten upon every detail.' "Replying to the apprehensions of a collision of force with the executive, Mr. Tilden thought them exaggerated, but said: 'Why surrender now? You can always surrender. Why surrender before the battle, for fear you may have to surrender after the battle is over?'