The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-08-26
SULLIVAN CANNOT SPEAK.

Taggart's Reply to the Republican Challenge
an Evasion of the Issues.
After all these weeks of waiting the Dem
ocratic committee has declined tie Repub-
lican challenge for a JOINT debate between
the candidates, as every body supposed it
would do. The Democratic politicians do
not care to enter into q discussion of the
issues. They prefer to keep the people in
ignorance about the salary steal, the
charter violations, the street-rail.
way question, the electric-liGht fizzle,
the indiscriminate paving policy. the fail
ure of the Sullivan administration to do
anything with drainage questions, the
horrible condition of the unpaved streets.
They prefer to keep the people in ignorance
as much as possible in all these matters.
A series of joint discussions would
bring out crowds of voters who
pay littlo attention to political matters IN
the newspapers and do not keep close track
OF city affairs. but this is just exactly what
the Democrats do not want.
Yesterday morning Chairman Grubhs
found tucked under the door of the Repub-
lican committee rooms q reply from Chair
man Taggart of the Democratic committee
to the challenge Issued q couple of weeks
ago. Taggart wrote that. while Mayor Sui
livan is ready and willing to contribute in
tins or any other way 70 q fali understanfo
matters involved in the pending election.
il is the unanimous Judgment of the Demo
cratic city committee that what the people
are called upon TO consider are purely ques-
tions of fact. and that there is a better way
or getting all the facts before them than by
joint debate between the two candidates.
He then gave what the Democrats assume
to be facts relative to the finances of the
city as administered by Republicans and
Democrats.
IF they are not facts" wrote Taggart,
they can be better disproved by an appeal
to the records than by joint debates. The
Democratic committee, therefore, suggests
that two experts be chosen to examine the
records carefully and report, under oath, q
single statement. setting forth the facts.
the same to be submitted to the public at
least thirty days before the election. The
Democratic committee TO name one expert,
your committee to name one. and the two.
in the event of O failur to agree, to select
q third. the expenses of the investigation
to be borne jointly by the two committees.
This proposition 10 made in entire good
faith. and it is i believed thar, if accepted. il
will accomplish the desired result better
than the proposed joint debates, and enable
the citizens of Indianapolis to vote intelli-
gently at the coming election"
The facts" enumerated are q rehash of
the Woollen-M Mansfield speech which the
vention, the false pretenses of which
have been thoroughly exposed by
the Journal heretofore. in that it gives the
preceding administration no credit for
building the city buildiugs and hospital.
for reducing the cost of light from S25 to
SIS per post, for increasing the saloon rev.
enue by $50. 900 a year for the Democrats 10
expend. and in that it leaves out OF the ac-
count the great advantages IN street-im-
proving afforded BY the Barrett law and
the new charter. Like this same Woollen-
Mansfield speech, this reply Is an effort ia
sneak ont of the living issues of the present
and attack a past administration. which
did more for the city in numerous ways
than the present one. and did it under
vastly harder conditions; an administrator
which has no more TO do with the issues OF