The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1897-04-16
PROF. SEARLES' REPLY.
He Answers a Letter Sent Him by
Prof. Bagley, of rlapleton.
The Real Facts Regarding the Recent
Debate Given.

Respecting the dissatisfaction of
the Mapleton boys over the debate on
April 2, it appears from an interview
with Principal Searles that it is en-
tirely unfounded, and that the treat
ment which they received at the
hands of the Mankato boys was cour-
teous and gentlemanly. When the
time came to debate, there was mis-
understanding between the sides as
to some minor details. In the alb
sence of letters from either side and
in order to hasten the beginning Of
the debate, Principal Searles proposed
compromise. He knew nothing as
TO the real merits of the case. But
as to the practical outcome of the
compromise both sides broke about
even, MapleJon being somewhat
ahead. Principal Searles afterwards
went over all the letters in the case,
and while he finds that the Mapleton
boys were technically correct in their
position, he entirely eXonerates Mr..
Hudson, whom the Mapleton princi-
pal charges with lying and trickery,
from intentional wrong. Mr.. Hudson
merely misunderstood the wishes Of
the Mapleton boys as expressed in
their letters. We give below Mr..
Bagley's letter TO Principal Searles,
and Principal Searles' answer thereto.
1t would seem that Mr.. Bagley should
have had the courtesy to wait for re-
ply from Principal Searles, at least,
before rushing into the papers:
MAPLEToN, Mimi, April 8, 1897.
Mr.. O. M. SEARLES,
DEAR SIR: | wish to call your at
tenUion to Mr.. Roy Hudson's letter in
regard to the time OF debaterS last
evening. That letter is in possession
| of Mr.. KenaStOn. An examination Of
! it's contents must convince you that
our position last evening was correct
and yours wrong. 1t must also con-
vince you that MIR. Hudson has been
guilty OF falsehood and deceit. You
stated that he told you at the time he
sent the letter that he had not waived
the matter of time, whereas he had,
in so many words, done just that.
Unless an apology for this disgrace
full trick is forthcoming, we shall
publicly assert and, it seems to me,
with good reason that the debate was
deliberately stolen. Haven't we a
right to do so? Yours,
III. E. BAGLEY.
MANKATO, Mimi, April s, '97.
Mr.. Ell. e. BAGLEY,
MapieUop, Mimi.
DEAR SIR: Your letter of April
Sd DIT hand. / have also on my table
the letters of Mr.. Hudson and all the
letters written by your boys to him
and TO Mr.. Lunn. In this whole mat
ter shall try TO be just as | have
tried 10 be so in the past. In the
matter of the compromise just preced-
ing the debate, in the absence of all
letters and other evidence, it seems to
me The only possible way to get On
was TO do just as we did do, get TO-
gether by mutual concessions. There
was no attempt to take advantage.
Had l felt there was, L should GER
tainby have been no party to it. l
gave no evil construction to either
side and honestly believed that the
matter in dispute grew out of an I'M
fortunate misunderstanding. 1t was
in that spirit Of fair play that L pro
posed the compromise. 10 that you
must certainly agree.
Now as TO the p sitiOn of Mr.. Hud-
son, when l first read his letter which
you sent US, felt that he had no
ground whatever for his con-
tentiOn and that whatever his mo-
tive or his claims they did not ap-
pear sincere. Had that letter beef
produced at the time OF the dispute, L
should not have cOunseled compro-
mise but would have advised our boys
to go on. And all the letters put to-
gether in chain support you. Your
boys with perfect Justice were en-
titled to their claims. 10 this con- =,
cluSiOn | have come after fair and
careful examination Of both sides. !
However, L am not prepared to go SO
far as you have gone in your eX parte
opinions. | Lam not ready to accuse
Mr. Hudson of falsehood. / do not
believe he is guilty Of any. do think
his position can not be maintained by |
his letters and by yours, but do see
how he got wrong ideas as to your in
tentions. / think it was misunder-
Oh pa "hASh WAN
easily have arisen. In letter written
by Mr.. Mclaughlin dated March 9th
he makes the following statement:
"Now our intention is to have one of
the assistants open the debate. He
will speak fifteen minuiUs as the con-
tract states, and the leader, who is to
make the rebuttle, will speak third
that is on the alternative side. This
arrangement of the speakers doesn't
make any material difference, but we
wish it to be understood before we
sign the contract. Will there be any
objections to such an arrangements"
The spelling is not mine Mr.. Hud-
sons letter SO nearly as [ can ascer-
tain was an answer to this one. Now
l leave it to your sense of justice that
in the face of this statement and the
letter of Mr.. Hudson's a misunder
standing could easily have arisen. He
wrote more broadly in his letter Than
he realized, but in his mind when he.
wrote was the consciousness Of your
position which l have just quoted.
He did not then expect you to change.
am not denying that his letter gave
you that privilege. l am accounting
for his positioe. Do you not think
81 n L, |