The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1910-06-12

Ardmore, Oklahoma.
Dear Sir:
| have read your favor of the 3rd
inst, accepting my proposed match
up discussion between Us and Judge
J. u. \. Robertson and Col. l.. p.
Ross as the same appeared in your
official organ, the Daily Oklahoman,
nave received acceptance from the
other gentlemen named.
You state that have omitted mem
tioning the Hon. f. h. Herring and
General" Brant Kirk as candidates
for the same position. omitted both
because there is no evidence that
either is candidate for governor, OLt
rather candidates for sloughing votes
from some other candidate. | had n
formation prior to the announcement
of the said General" Brant Kirk that
Your headquarters in the Lee Hotel,
directed by John X. Williams the in
surance agent, and John b. DOolin, he
abstractor, had secured the services
OF General Brant Kirk to run, and
evidently that was why he singled me
out OF all the candidates for bitter
and scurrious attack, and your letter
seems to confirm this Information.
have no desire to discuss matters
concerning the governors office with
anyone except those running for gov
ernor, however, | shall agree to their
going along if this be the condition of
your acceptance.
You complain that | have fixed all
conditions, but you accede to the
same. You fail, however, to point
cut that any such conditions are un-
fair. If your managers will point
out the unfairness of them | shall be
glad, through my representatives, to
modify them with a view of making
them fair, with but one limitation;
that is | shall not agree to any plan
OF physical combat CT to answer in
the heat of passion in any way hay-
ing the semblance of dueling, and
which yourself have designated the
Kentucky PLAN" want to strip
this discussion both of fire water
and fire arms.
You state that we differ on four
questions, tc-wit The Grandfather
Clause" so-called taxation of Indian
lands, Torrens land registration sys.
TEN, and the wisdom of the States
purchasing the coal and asphalt
lands. l assume that you know
whereof you speak for the reason
that there are no official records
by which your own position can be
ascertained, while you have the bene-
fit of my official record, made under
the sanctity of an oath, as dis
closed by the records of the con
stitutional convention and the first
legislature. But for the purpose of
disclosing my position to these who
have not had access to the printed
journals of the constitutional con
vention and the first legislature,
here state my position on each of
the four questions named:
1st. AS to the Torrens land reg
istration system, your Muskogee
speech, your revised version of your
Holderville declaration discloses that
you are opposed to it and that you
will veto it. Your opposition thereto
is based upon the proposition that
it will bankrupt the state, and then
gou instance the thirty thousand
land suits in the federal courts. IN
this you showed your ignorance of
the operation of the law and the
system. 1t will not bankrupt the
state, but it will bankrupt some of
the Indian Territory grafters, who
nave made up a lot OF titles with
view of unloading upon some new
conner to our state desiring to buy
home, as it will declare these
titles as belonging to the fullblood,
from whom these grafters attempt
ed by mental cunning to rob. Had
the Torrens land system been in
force from the beginning of state
government the thirty thousand suits
never would have appeared on the
docket as the title would have been
made manifest to every man. How
can you bankrupt the state unless
it may be sued, and where is the
authority for an individual to sue a
sovereign state. Read Eleventh
Amendment to L. S. constitution.
2nd. AS to the taxing of Indian
lands, l have to state that l was
in the legislature that enacted the
law that provided for the taxation