Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1856-10-29
THE DEMOCRATIC CHAMPIONS
BACKED OUT.

slandering DR.. Jeffries, one of our best citi-
zens, because he has seen proper to expose the
political dishonesty of some of the wire-work-
ers of the present Democratic party. Some
time since, he expressed through your Journal
that he would meet any gentleman, of good
character, in the Democratic ranks, and pub
licly discuss the great political questions of
the day, pledging himself to prove all that he
had said in reference TO the policy of the pre-
sent Democratic party. At last his challenge
was accepted, the time and place appointed
by the Democrats, and word sent to DIR. JET
fries to attend at the district school house near
John Goss's in Decatur township, on Thursday
Oct. 24th, at . O'Clock, to meet Hon. u. X.
Barrett, DR.. Boyer, and Israel Test, Esq, in
public discussion. The parties having met,
and the house being crowded with anxious
spectators, both male and female, after some
sparring as TO whether the meeting was Dem
ocratic or Republican, Dr. Jeffries moved that
the meeting be organized by appointing three
moderators-one Democrat, one Republican,
and one American. Thompson A. Shaw, E.
Walk and G. Westbrook were elected. DIR.
Jefries then moved that the speakers be con-
fined to half an hour for each speech; at
which Judge Barrett arose and said he wished
the speakers not to be confined to half an hour
or to any given time, but to have the liberty
to speak as long as they pleased. DR.. Jeffries
replied that that was not only contrary to all
the rules of discussion, but that it would pre-
vent any reply to the arguments CT the gentle
men opposed to him, as they could hold the
floor all night if they were not restricted to
given time. Judge B. said he did not come
here to have gag-law forced down his throat,
but that he was bound to have liberty of
speech, and that he claimed the right TO speak
as long as he pleased. DR.. Jeffries replied
that he wished TO have the discussion conduc-
ted on fair principles and according TO parlia-
mentary usages that diSputants in all public
debates had limited time to speak that even
members of Congress were confined to an
hour, and lie (Jeffries) thought that half an
hour was long enough to speak at time, and
as they could speak as often as they pleased,
be knew the people would understand the dis
cuSsion better; but should they not be con-
! fined to any given time, he (Jeffries) would get
but one speech, and they (Barret & Coz would
employ the remainder of the time and thus
/ deprive him of single reply. He hoped the
/ half hour proposition would carry. Judge
! Barrett said there were no such parliamentary
rules. and that members of Congress were not
confined to an hour, stated by the gentle
man. Mr.. Test said he agreed with Judge
| Barrett that there were no such parliamentary
rules as the gentleman referred to, but he tho t
the best way would be for Mr.. Jeffries to go on
and speak as long as lie wished, and then they
would follow. DR.. Jeffries replied that that
would not be a discussion, as proposed, and
| that he was sorry to see gentlemen who pro-
| fessed to know much heretofore, now know
so little of the rules and customs of their coun-
try in discussion. Why, sirs, said he, it is
one of the rules of the National House of Rep
resentatives that members are allowed to speak
but one hour at time, and you never heard of
public discussion but what the dsputants
were limited TO given timo. Judge Barrett
said he would not discuss the questions at all,
if he was to be confined to half hour speeches ;
that he would not be deprived of the liberty OF
speech as they say the people are in Kansas.
DR.. Jeffries replied that the half hour rule gave
all the debaters an equal liberty of speech, but
to have no rule would deprive him of having
after the first speech any more liberty OF
speech through the discussion, and he was GER
tain that all the good the present Democratic
party had done, could be told in less than halt
an hour, and he would therefore call for the
vOte-whIch was taken and resulted three to
one in favor of the half-hour rule.
DR.. Jeffres then moved that none but official
documents be introduced in the discussion
Judge Barrett said he would not discuss under
any such rule. DR.. Jeffries said he introduc.
ed this mo fon that the people might be able
to get the truth, for he knew that if the Dem
ocratic papers were admitted as evidence, the
people would be no wiser after than before the
: discussion. Judge Barret said if he was to be
dictated to in that way he would not discuss
at all. DR.. Jeffries replied that rather thar
have no discussion he would withdraw the mo.
, tion. Judge Barrett then said he would moi
debate under the half hour rule. DR.. Jeffrie.
said he had come prepared to discuss the
} great political questions now before the coun
try, and he hoped the Democratic champion:
would not back out, when the people were as
sembled to hear the debate. Judge Barrett
said they would not back out, but they would
not discuss under such restrictions. DR.. JEFF
: fries replied that rather than they should bacl
{ out and have no debate, he would be willing
to have the time heightened to an hour fo
each speech. Judge Barrett said they would
= not debate at all, but they would go out anC
1 hold democratic meeting. DR.. Jeffries saiC
r be was willing and ready to meet the whole o
, them in discussion, and was now prepared t.