Evening star., 1896-10-08

Mr.. Davis may do the same. To attempt
to provide against it would be silly. as
well as fruitless.
MIR. Gates Makes New Proposals.
Mr.. Gates, Mr.. Davis representative. to-
day addressed letter to Mr.. Kalbfus as
follows:
referring to our interview Of yesterday
and your communicate ton in this mornings
Post in relation thereto, beg to say that
have this morning had conference with
Mr.. Davis in relation to the proposed joint
debate between Mr.. Hutchins and him
SELF with the result hereinafter appearing.
"Your letter to the Post makes 1t ap-
pear that l practically refused to come to
any understanding with you. i note spe-
cially that you make 1t appear that l de-
clired to waive my proposition to name
vice presidents and to unite upon some
you know is not the case. told you that
1 vas and 1 still am ready to submit the
conduct Of the meeting to a president to
be agreed upon by us.
again, you seem to wish to have 1t un-
derstood that 1 declared that Mr.. Davis
would not discuss any other question than
the free coinage of silver at the ratio of 16
to 1. This also you know is not the case.
What 1 did say and insist upon in that
connection Is that the broad terms in
which YOU wish the question to be put
made 1t in effect no question at all In
his letter to Mr.. Hutchins of October 3
Mr.. Davis Invitation was to debate the
free silver question In his reply of Oc-
tober Mr.. Hutchins alluded to the invi-
silver question: In turn, in finally assent
ing to Mr.. Hutchins' variation Of the in
vitation Mr.. Davis in his letter Of October
6 in terms described 1t as my invitation
of silver You well know that when we
parted last night it was after my distinct
statement that l was anxious to have the
question so formulated as to be capable
Of int fo1I 1iScnCSfnn
the extent of my objection to the way in
which you proposed to put it.
when we parted last night I left you
with the earnest request that you would
meet me again today, after We should have
had opportunity to consult our respective
principals. This 1 did because. while we
there were three matters upon which did
not feel that 1 could commit Mr.. Davis
without further conference with him. On
| your part, however, you emphatically de-
that one conference, or that the whole
| matter should be considered off. Neither
| Mr. Davis nor can consent to let the mat.
| ter rest here, and therefore in his behalf
submit to you the following:
Il. I consent that the debate may be had
at Convention Hall, and that the meeting
shall be presided over by Mr.. A. T. Britton,
| If he will consent to preside; II Mr.. Brit
| ton declines we will agree upon some other
| suitable person.
90 1 waive the proposed division of the
|
| ferent colored tickets, and am willing to
| take the chances of bringing together the
| calmly disposed audience to which Mr..
Hutchins alluded in his letter of the 9Th.
| "3. AS respects the form of question. I do
| not care how it may be stated, in view Of
| the fact that in your letter to me of yes
terday you say. Mr.. Hutchins will defend
the Chicago platform, and will not assa.l
any previous national democratic platform
| 81 1 would prefer that we have some
agreement providing that undue Interrupt
ton, in the opinion of the presiding officer.
| shall not deprive the speaker interrupted OF
any portion of his time; but, to give no
| lccphole for difference on this point. II you
dc not frankly aud fully assent to 1t will
| waive it.
'5. AS respects the publication Of the
| speeches at a joint expense to Mr.. Hutch
| ins and Mr.. Davis, l cannot consent to put
Mr.. Davis to this expense. l am convince1
| from the universal interest which has bee
| manifested in the proposed debate. and my
| Knowledge Of the fairness of the local press
| that there will be no distinction made for
| or against either Mr.. Hutchins or Mr.
| of the two newspapers which you mention
namely. tn. Washington Post and The
| Evening Star, will induce them to make O
full and fair report of the debate. such a
| report, in other words, as this community
| expects Of those papers in the light Of Past
| experience.
&c There remains but the one question
as to the division of time and the length
of the speeches. Your proposal to have
the opening speech three-quarters of al
hour in length, to be followed by the speech
of the second speaker of one hour and
quarter in length, and this in turn to be
followed by the first speakers reply Of
fifteen minutes, is out of the question. II
the first place 1t gives one speaker fifteer
minutes more time than the other. In thu
next place it gives that speaker the oppor
tunity of solid and continuous exposition o
his side. while 1t compels the speaker open
ing the debate to limit himself to forty-f1
minutes In the outset. much of which time
he will certainly be interrupted by late ar
rivals in the audience; and it gives tha
speaker the absurdly short time of a quar-
ter of an hour in which to reply to a soIit
argument five times as long.
THE plan proposed by me I am willin,
to qualify to this extent: Let the order O
speaking be determined by lot let the frs
speaker one hour, the first speaker fifteel
minutes and the second speaker ffteeI
minutes, in that order. This will make tn,
debate of but two hours and a half ii
length, and 1t will be singularly unin
terested audience that will not stay through
that length of time, regard being had t
| the occasion. The order Of speaking thu
| proposed Is that in vogue in the principa
universities Of the country where prize de
bates are held. I can conceive of nothing
| fairer than to allow each speaker a brie
| opportunity Of either Clearing up misap
prehensions Of his position, or Of replying
to the points Of his adversary, as may b
found expedient.
"You will observe, therefore, that prac
| tically name but two essentials to the de
bate: One is that Mr.. Davis be not put t
the expense Of reporting and publishing tn
| speeches; the other is that as to diVisiO