The evening times., 1896-10-08
NO BLOWS BELOW THE BELT
Conti1tied from First Page.

| act, on my part atleast, aud declined. After
considerable discussion we agreed upon
nearly all of>tle details.
Upon the selection of a presiding or
ficer we could not agree. as his plan, tbe
selection of two vice presidents 10 choose
| the prcsitlipg Officer, was impracticabie
As a last resort I proposed to have him
select either of. the following "eii-khoWh
Republicans, Mr.. A. 7. Britton or Mr..
c. Maurice Smith, well kuawn to he
opposed to the side of the question adyo-
Gated by Mr. Hutchins, which lie declined.
in,s Inciined me To the belief that de-
hate was not wanted. aud when MIR. Gates
insisted upon shifting the subject matter
OF debate from the gold and silver question
10 the question OF free coinage OF silver at
the ratio of 6 To 1. on the ground that his
principal was thoroughly familiar with that
question, aud he would not consent that
his principal should discuss any other.
became fully convinced that fair debate
or the question was not desired by Mr..
Davis representative.
/ regret exceedingly to be compelled to
write this letter. but air. Gates prcma-
iurc publication this afternoon OF his let
ter TO me leaves me no other course. /
nsS that. this letter. together with my let
ter 10 Mr.. Gates OF this Afternoon handed
him before we enterc upoa the discussion
or the matter, may he published. Very
MR.. GATES LETTER
Headquarters NonPartisan Sound Money
League, Washington, ID. c., October 8,
Thuuas Ii. Kalbfus. Esq:
Dear Sir: Referring to our interview of
yesterday and your communication in rela-
tiOn thereto, 1 beg to say that l have this
morning had n conference with Mr.. PAWS
in reiatiua tu the proposed joint debate be-
tween Mr.. Uutchins and himself, with the
result hereinafter appearing.
Iuur letter makes IL appear that prac-
t.cdiiy refused To come 10 any understand
Ing with you. l note specially that you
make ii appear that ldCcnBed to waive my
proposition TO name vice Presidents and
10 unite upon some proper person to act
us President. This you Know is not the
case. ! tod you that was, and | still
am ready to submit the conduct of the
meeting to President To be agreed upon
Dy us.
Again, You seem to wish to have 1t under
stood that declared that Mr.. Davis would
not discuss any other question than the free
coinage OF silver at the ratio OF 16 to l
This, also, you Know is not the case. What
| did say and insist upon in that connec-
tiunis.that the bsoa DIT .rms ia which ou wish
the question to-be put Ihade it i'll effect no
question at ALL
In his letter 10 Nr. Hutchins OF October 3
Mr. Davis invitation was Ito debate the
free silver auestiu,I." 10 his reply OF Octo-
Der Mr.. II Hup.hias alludcdsto { he invitation
as being Ito Sdetatce the gold and silver
question"
In turn, in finally asserting to Mr.. II Hutch-
ms variation of the Invitation. Mr.. Davis,
in his letter of october &, in te rms described
IL as IN Y in Dyitation to discuss the question
| of the free coinage of silver" You well
know thatwhen we parted last night it was
after my distinct statement that | was
anxious to h ave the question so formulated
as to be capable OF intelligent discussion,
and that is the extent of my objection to
the way in which you proposed to putt.
THE MEETING TODAY.
When we parted last night left you with
the earnest request that you would meet
me again todays after we>hould have had
opportunity to consult our respective prin-
cpals. This l did because while We had
practically agreed to everything else there
were three matters upon which did not
feel that could commit Mr.. Davis without
further conference with him. on Your part.
however, YOU emphatically declared that
all details must be settled in that one con
ference OF that the whole matter Should
be considered off. Neither Mr.. Davis nor
can consent toilet the matter rest here and
I , therefore, in his behalf, submit to you the
folio wing:
l. CONSENT that the debate may be
had at Convention Hall, and that the
meeting-sbah be presided over by Mr.
y. I. Brittou, If he, will consent to pre-
side, If Mr.. Britton declines, We will
agree upon some other suitable person
2. waive the proposed division of the
hall into two parts and the printing OF
different colored tickets, and am willing
to- take the chances of bringing together
the !" calmly disposed audience" to which
Mr. Hutchins alluded in bis letter of the
9th.
3. AS respects the form of question do
not care how ii may Re stated, in view of
the fact that in your letter TO me of ycster-
day you say, Mr.. Hutchins will defend the
Chicago platform and will not assail any
previous national Democratic platform.
f. l would prefer that we have some
agreement providing that UNDUE inter-
ruption, in the rninion Of the presiding
officer, shall not de.,'i-e the speaker in
terrupted of any portion OF his time: but
to give no loophole for difference on this
point, If you do not frankly and fully as
sent to it will waive it. ...
B. As respects The publication of the
speeches at joint expense to Mr.. Hutchins
and Mr Davis cannot consent to put Mr.
Davis to this expense. Il am convinced,
from the universal interest which has been
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.. Davis
LENGTH OF THE SPEECHES.
6. There remains but the one question
as to division of time and the length of the
speeches. Your proposal TO have the opcu
ing speech three-Guarters of an hour in
| length. to be follow ed by the speech of the
second speaker of one hour anda quarter in
Jap 10 in tn y Ia al b,-t b,
first speakers reply of fifteen minutes, is
out OF the question.
in the first place it gives one speaker
| fifteen minutes more time than the other.
in the next place 1t gives that speaker the
opportunity of solid ard continuous eX-
position of his side while it compels the
| speaker opening the debate to limit him.
self to forty-fiye minutes In the outset
much of which time he will certainly be
| Interrupted by iatearrivals In the audience,
| and it gives that speaker the absurdly short
time of Quarter of an hour in which to
| reply to q s4aids argument five times as
| long. S@%-
The plan proposed Nv me am willing to
equality to this extent; let the order of
speaking be determined by lot; let the
| first speaker speak one hour, and the sec
ond speaker one hour; the first speaker
| fifteen minutes and the second speaker
fifteen minutes, in their order This will
make the debate Of but wo hoursapd a half
| IN length, and it will be singularly unin-
terested audience that will not stay
| through that length of time, regard being
had TO the occasion.
| The order of speaking thus proposed is
that in vogue ia. the principal universities
I of the country where prize debates are
held. I can conceive of nothing fairer
I than to allow each speaker brief .,ppor-
L nf either r1pa rtnO uu mil