New-York tribune., 1892-01-08
NEW-YORk TRIBUNE.


New York, December IS, 1891.
To the Editor Of The World" New York city
Dear Sir: Referring 10 the joint debate on the taTh
recently proposed by The World will you kindly
let me know II you care to go with the matter and
about when you would like TO have it begin
In arranging for the future work Of The Tribune. II
would be convenience TO Us to know at an early
day whether or not this joint debate Is to be under
taken should not receive reply from you before
January /, Will consider that the matter has been
dropped by you. Very sincerely,
D. NICHOLSON.
THE WORLD QUITS TIE FIELD.
After lapse of eleven days, The World. > with
great urbanity. resigned the field to The Tribune
as follows:
World" Editorial Rooms,
New-York, Dec. 30, o91.
D. Nicholson, esq., Managing Editor Tribune, New-iors
City.
Ny Dear Sir: Your letter OF date last month in
regard to proposed Joint debate the tariff was the
first intimation l had had that the proposition had
been made you As / understand, Mr. Wilson,
Editor of our Weekly. proposed TO you 10 print any
article you might supply upon the tariff side by side
with an article prepared In The World Onice, yOu
10 publish our article side by side with your own.
This was a simple proposition. The conditions which
yon added made the arrangement impossible on our
part Very truly yonls, BALLARD SMITH,
Acting EditoriE Chief
ALL TIE FAULT OF THE CONDITIONS
In concluding this statement as to what has
taken place between The WOrld' and The
Tribune concerning n joint debate, we would call
attention to one point in the original letter in
which The Tribune challenged 10 the dis
cussion. IL is contained in the following sentence
The World is ready TO accept any notifications
and any conditions The Tribune may propose, provided
the notifications do not destroy the central idea. that
the subscribers TO each shall " hear the other side "
II feels 50 confident that The Tribune would not
accept much less ask. any conditions that were not
fair and Just, that Il leaves ii free to make any il
desires.
We ask any reader TO examine the stlpulations
contained in the first letter Of The Tribune. ana
tell us whether there a single condition placed
upon The World which was not equally binding
on The Tribune The intention WAS carefully 10
guard against naming any condition which would
REQUIRE The World" upon its part, 70 take any
assume We believe we were successful in ar
ranging for basis for the debate which should
he equally fair TO both sides
The World" declares, however. that the con-
ditions which you added made the arrangement
impossible on oar part The Tribune was
squarcy and plainly invited 10 impose such con-
ditions as it pleased. providing that they should
not destroy the central idco" No ono will for
u moment claim that orr conditions in any way
damaged or interfcred with the central idea.
which was 10 place the articles prepared upon
both sides OF this question side by side III both
papers Nevertheless, the conditions have been
impossible of fuhment on the Democratic side
The object OF The Tribune was to compel
"Thc World to state squarey where Itself and
the Democratic party stood on the tarilf question.
1t alsO desired that paper 10 state Just the KIND OF
tariff bill which il would substitute III place OF
the one it would have repealed, if it desires tie
repeal Of the Mckinney bill We did not propose
10 give :" The World" a chance 10 tear down the
house in which the people of this country 1--we
without also stating the kind of building il would
erect into which they were to move. The Trib-
une bound itself to state exactly the NInd of "A
tariff in which itself and the Republican party be
lieve and freed 10 state the form Of bill il would
defend.
The World" seems to be unable 10 define It's
position and that of the Democratic party, and
seems not to know really what 10 believe We
have for some time been suspicious that such is
the case Indeed we made the very conditions
referred to because Of our anxiety 10 find out Just
what the Democratic position il on this tariff
question The World" now informs us that our
conditions make the arrangement impossible on its
part. Very well, we do not ask impossibilites
The Tribune is not in the least hampered by
any difficulty in defining its position the ariil
1t knows what it believes. and why it believes
and it favored a contest in which It's opponent
should be required To define its own position and
that Of the Democratic party.
We now leave it 10 the readers Of The Tribune
10 determine whether there is on the part Of /" The
World" any absorbing anxiety 10 have serious
debate of this kind appear in its columns. If
The World will publish the foregoing cor
respondcncc, we shall he equally willing TO leave
the question TO the decision Of its readers