Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1909-06-04
THE REPLY OF JUDGE MANN.

THE REPLY Of JCOoG mNN'
Judge William Hodges Mann has re-
Piled to the letter of Hon. Harry 81
George Tucker, requesting series oil
ten debates throughout the state, ana
Il must be admitted that Judge Mann's
reply is a very forceful paper on its
face. We will wait for the parts
ans to pick the flaws contained there
In. No one can read Judge Manns
reply without being impressed by II
The reply is not meant to be gentle
and II certainly does not spare MS
opponent by mincing words or cloud
ing his meaning. II is quite eviden'
that he has said exactly what he in
tended saying, and he is on record IN
print over his own signature as to
what he did say. There can be no
evasion and Mr.. Tucker has some
clearly defined charges to answer.
However, aside from the merits OF
the matters in controversy between
the two gentlemen, we are of the
opinion that Judge Mann expressed
a ringing truth when he maze use
of the following language:
"You ask why | did not challenge
you. In an interview given to the
press some time since, stated that
was opposed to such discussions be
cause they are manifestly against the
interest OF the Democratic party. tena
ing To create factions. and 10 make
many members of the party. certainl,
the strong friends OF the defeated can.
didate, dissatisfied with and unwilling
70 support the nominee. whoever he
maybe: because, IL may judge from
what occurred in Boydton, IL Is not
broposed to discuss issues that viii
enlighten the people. but to deal in
personalities; not to discuss records
In the sense of what has Or has not
been accomplished. but to indulge In
insinuations and raise questions as
to ones motives; because il is undig
nified. unbscoming and unseemly foi
gentlemen to engage in such personal
d;scussions-the once OF governor OF
Virginia Is one of too much dignity
for tine candidates to put themselves
up to amuse. not to enlighten, the
people. abusing one another: be
cause the reporters are generally par
fisans Of one candidate OF the other
and the reports are usually biased
and unfair. and because such debates
are filled with demagogism and the
tendency is always to take advan-
tsge OF ones opponent and try &
catch him unawares. as YOU did al
Bcydton when you refrained from
making any attack on me until you
know II was too late for me TO re
ply
Judge Mann is no doubt right a
TO the majority Of his reasons for
not engaging in joint debates with
Mr. Tucker. The campaign has as
sumed such a situation that even his
charge against the press Of the state
) IN measure true. although We Nc
not believed il 10 be generally so II
has oniy been a few days since w
saw two reports % the same meeting
printed IN parallel columns and Civ
Tag absolutely dsverzing opinions a
20 he meeting
Gcatiemanly debate is one thin,
and viiupcrs;ion T. another. We ar
not sore that Jsdge liam has en-
'.rely Ecfra;nsf from that which he =
iorcefHiiy deprccates. Certainly h
ezpcctsd bis letter. printed vcdnes
day afternoon and yesterday nornini
n most Of thc daily papers through
oct the state. 70 reach far more pco
pie than any joint debate between an
two candidates IN the State wouil
draw IN that reply Judge Mann Ia
not RETAINED froa saying man
harsh thing. and he must Tel YER
secure N his position 70 have N
scfneriiy 20 place his signature b.
meath thcn- Ne have NJ doubt ihz
sr. Tucker vfH have = rcpiv. whsc
~ rhcrtis make ~ appearance I
Ire press q tar STATE and there