Lexington gazette. [volume] (Lexington, Va.) 1871-1962, 1909-06-09

VI uFSt luoorttOu anu W. MILO ~
each subsequent insertion.
No More Joint Debates Between
Mann and Tucker
Judge William Hodges Manr
has replied to the challenge Of
Hon. Henry St. George Tucker
for ten joint discussions of the
gubernatorial Issues, and has de.
clined to meet the latter in any
more joint debates during their
primary contest for Governor
Among other things in his lengthy
reply, Judge Mann says:
~ most respectfully decline to
accept your proposition to have
ten joint discussions at ten differ
emit points throughout the State.
The campaign is progressing to my
entire satisfaction, and propose
to conduct my side of it along
lines that seem to me best, and not
along lines that you may choose to
select.
ayes, / did intend to cay in my
Powhatan epeech: i have prompt
lY accepted in good faith, every
challenge that was offered" l
accepted your challenge at Boyd
ton. and In your methods you
trampled down all the ethics of
the debate; accepted your chal.
lepgs al Christiansburg, subject to
the approval of the county com.
mittee, to which you also agreed;
I accepted your challenge at Le-
bsnon upon terms which you said
at Christiansburg were acceI table,
but you then, after my acceptance,
sous bit to add other terms, deciin.
ing to debate unless your latter
terms were accepted at Bath ;your
friends here informed that your
challenge would be accepted, and
it was not forthcoming. although
your Richmond organ, upon the
authority of your campaign man.
ager, stated that you would chal.
lengs me.
In discussing the Petersburg 10.
cal option election, Judge Mann,
Gays: 81 have just seen in the
newspapers your statement that
should have been at 'home' when
the local option election was held
in Petersburg last week. My home
and voting place is in Nottoway
county. as you must know, since
you have several times referred TO
me in your speeches as the Senator
from Nottoway. This is hardly
fair way to GEEK to create the i'm.
preston that failed to vote when
a local option election was held at
my home, as you did when such
an election was held in Lexington
on March 20, 1900.
Sand while / am on this sub.
ject want to say that you have
been making all over this State a
charge against me that is not in
any respect true, and in making
which you do me gross injustice.
At fist you stated, or rather, in
sinuated, that mad made come
deal with the liquor people for the
purpose of securing their votes.
1 denied this charge and stated
that its repetition by anyone
would tear the brand of falsehood.
You then said that you accepted my
as being true, but charg-
cd that such a deal had been made
by some one for me, but you did
not say by whom.
~ say positively and emphati.
cally that no such deal has been I
made by me or by any one for mo;
that no one has, or will have, G
authority from me to make such a
deal, and that none will be made. q
You have not the right to 60 over
the State making such an indef. a
nate charge, which you know has L
been time and time again denied. '
| know that the sreat body of Ii t
1uor people throughout the State
IRE actively opposing me, and il t
here be some Of them supporting Z
ne, aud l hope there are, they are a
ioing so with a full knowledge of l
10y record and of my present posi- 4,
ion, which l have fully Get forth II
n MY public speeches, some of G
which l have printed and widely Il
distributed. In justice to the men
Who differ from me on the liquor O
question, l will say that no propo Il
ition of any kind has been made q
" them to me directly or indi-
ectly. / have written letters of 81
he same tenor and have sent the q,
ame literature to all voters, re-
,ardless of their views on the tenn. v
,erance question. l again deny A
'our charge and call for your a
roof, and If you cannot produce
. you should publicly withdraw
our charge" C