New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1906-10-03
WILL DEBATE TARIFF ISSUE.
Hammond and Me- leary WillMeet
in Debate. q
Both Candidates Willing to Give
Views on Tariff.
Ha mmond Consents to Four Joint
Discussions Of Subject.

There has been more or less specu-
lation on the part of the people Of this
district as to the attitude that the can
didates for the Office of congressman
from this district would take in the
matter Of joint meetings, and this has
been partially set at rest by the fol-
lowing correspondence that has taken
place between them. There is however
a suppostion from the character Of the
wording of the letter Of Mr.. McCleary
that he is not disposed to meet the st.
James man on the tariff issue as that
is not mentioned in the letter but re-
ference is made to (which principles
or policies are best calculated to pro-
mote the interests Of the people of the
United States, those of the democratic
or the republican party The dates
and places for these discussions have
not been arranged, but when and
wherever they are it is certain that
there will be a very large audience
there to hear these two political ath-
letes. Following is the correspondence
relative to the matter:
Mankato, Mimi, Sept. 81, 1906.
Hon. W.. S. Hammond, st. James,
MINI. My Dear Mr.. Hammond: It
is very gratifying to me to know that
in the coming campaign for congress I
shall have for my opponent gentle
man of such high character and great
ability as yourself. From our intimate
acqu aintance of many years I feel sure
that during and after this campaign,
however earnest it may become, there
will continue between us the mutu al re-
spect and good will that has endured
SO long. When we were opposing can
didates for the same position in 1892,
we did not have an unkind thought, let
alone an unkind word. And now let
us try to get our friends to help restore
the high standard of campaigning that
always prevailed in this district until
within the last two or three years.
81 am a republican because believe
profoundly in the principles and poll
cies Of the Republican party. With
equal sincerity, I have no doubt, you
are democrat. Whichever one of us
is elected will act in Congress on par
ty questions with the party of which he
is a member. So the real question at
issue in this district is this: (Which
principles and policies, those of the
republican party or those of the demo-
cratic party, are best calculated to
promote the interests of the people of
the United States and are therefore
most worthy Of approval by the people
of this district?''
"You are a lawyer. You are trained
in presenting cases to a jury. You are
justly regarded as an exceptionally
able speaker, as an orator without
superior land with few peers in the
state. | am not a lawyer I have
never tried to be an orator. My chief
aim in public speaking has always
been to tell the truth as simply and
clearly as possible.
"In courts of justice each attorney
is very properly required to present
a case to the jury in the presence and
hearing of the opposing counsel. It
has occurred to me that this would be
a good way for you and me to present
the case at issue between us to the jury
composed of the voters of this district
So I respectfully invite you to hold
with me a series of joint debates, at
least three in each county, so as to
reach the largest possible number of
voters with the least inconvenience to
them. Very truly yours,
j. L. MCCLEARY.
ST. James, Mimi, Sept. 25, 1906.
Hon. James 7. McCleary, Mankato,
MINI. My Dear Sir:-In this congress
sional campaign believe nothing will
occur to destroy the friendly relations
which have always prevailed between
|us, and as is stated in your letter Of
Sept. 2lst [ believe the respect each of
us has for the other will continue.
Before your letter was received or
published I wrote you that inasmuch
as there had been suggestions of joint
debates between us I was willing if it
were agreeable to you to arrange for
our joint debates in different parts of
the district upon the question, Should
the Protective Tariff Schedules be Re-
vised NoW?" stating that would take
!, the affirmative Of the question if you
would take the negative. In that let
ter I also said that if for any reason
you did not wish to engage in joint
debates upon that question, I would
| be pleased to hold our joint meetings
with you, an impartial moderator to
| be selected and the time to be equally
divided between US.
So far no arrangements for my cam