"Your statement, that 'the question of one or two persons is no longer
open, and that two have already been agreed upon, and the question now
is concerning a third,' is not correct. _We_ have not agreed to refer
the matter to Messrs. Rogers and Russell except with our proposed
addition of Mr. Murray, which addition you did not approve. By your
non-approval of him the matter was thrown back to the original proposal
to refer it to one person, and in that posture of affairs we must
consider that our proposal of Mr. Brook as that person was strictly
relevant.
"But in all this correspondence we seem to be playing at
cross-purposes, neither arriving at a result nor succeeding in
understanding each other. You are no doubt as tired of this as we
are. A reference--should we ever reach it on mutually satisfactory
terms--would take a long time and be a tedious mode of settlement.
Would it not be better to close the matter at issue finally by a
definite proposal which cannot be misunderstood. We estimate the time
that would be occupied by a reference, and the trouble and annoyance it
would occasion, at five hundred dollars, and we propose to send you our
check for that sum that this unprofitable controversy may be closed.
And we further propose to pay you hereafter ten per cent. of the
retail price, in cloth, for all copies sold of your various books now
published by us. Should you accept this offer, please advise us and we
will send you check and draw new contracts at once."
I think, notwithstanding the modest disclaimer of Messrs. Hunt, Parry,
& Co., we were getting to understand each other perfectly, except
that so far from becoming tired of the controversy, _I_ was only just
warming up to it.