Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-07-31
OSBORNE INSISTS
PLATFORMS DIFFER
Writes Rival Candidate Colby
That Policies Are Far
Apart.

Everett Colby. with whom he is striv-
ing for the Progressive gubernatorial
nomination, to debate with him in
public, Edmund B. Osborne has ad-
dressed an open letter to Mr. Colby
through which he hopes to make pub
lie the difference in the platforms of
the two candidates. Recently Mr..
Colby announced his platform and
this has been scrutinized by his rival
candidate.
In answer to Mr.. Osbornes sugges-
ton that they both appear on the
same platform in debate, former
Senator Colby gave as a reason for
his refusal that there was really very
little difference in the policies of the
two candidates and a debate was not
necessary Mr. Osborne, in his letter,
points out that there is a wide differ
ence in their two platforms and puts
five questions to Mr.. Colby through
which he hopes to show this differ
ence. The letter written by Mr.. Os-
borne to his rival candidate is as
follows:
Hon. Everett Colby,
Newark, N. j., July 20, 1913.
my Dear Mr.. Colby-You have de-
clined my challenge to meet me in
joint debate before the voters Of the
State on the ground that there is no
substantial difference between us on
public questions. Your Newark
speech, in which you declare your
position on the questions of the day,
shows that there is a wide difference
between us on nearly every important
issue.
II propose to allow each municipal
ity to abolish taxes on all buildings
and personal property. You propose
only a so per cent. reduction In the
assessment of buildings.
81 propose government ownership Of
railroads, telegraphs and telephones,
and municipal ownership of gas, cleo
trio light and water service. You OPP
pose government and municipal own
ership and favor regulation.
81 propose to abolish the trusts by
taking away their control of natural
resources, their control of banking
credit and their control of railroad
transportation. You propose to con-
tinue the policy of regulation, which
means more lawsuits and continued
failure.
II propose that we equip ourselves
with all the instruments oil
democracy, such as the short ballot,
the initiative and referendum, the re-
call of elective officials and the recall
of judicial decisions, by easy methods
of amending the constitution. You
indorse the short ballot. You throw
cold water on the initiative and refer
endum. You are silent on the recall
of judicial decisions and you have
previously expressed your opposition
20 the recall of elective officials.
81 would raise wages by giving
workers easy access to unused lana
and taking away from the trusts
their tariff, banking, transportation
and patent monopolies. Your plan
would leave these monopoly powers
in the hands of the trust employers
and have a commission recommend
to the employers minimum wage
scale.
"I propose a constitutional conven-
ton. composed of delegates elected
according to population; you are silent
on this subject.
81 propose to take away from the
Courts of Chancery the power 10 Is
sue injunctions in strike cases. You
eay nothing about this In your pat
form, but, from your action several
wears ago. in applying for injunctions
for the employers during the team
sters' strike, and in the Orange hat
ters' strike, it seems fair to assume
that YOU favor allowing the courts
to continue this power
These opposing views on important
Issues make 1t clear that the progress
sive voters, in choosing between your
candidacy and mine, are not mereiE
deciding which of two men they Will
honor with the nomination for Gov
ernor. but must choose between the
radically different methods we pro-
pose for solving the problems Which
confront us.
IF the party adopts the program
of radical cures for radical evils
which propose 1t will become the
great radical party of our time just
as the Republican party was tho
great radical party when 1t abolished
human slavery; but IL the Progressive
party adopts your program of paliia-
tives and refuses to really attack
privilege, it will disintegrate and dis
appear-it will have no excuse Tor rs
existence as a compromise middle
of-the-road' party.
eft is plain, therefore, that the dif-
ferences between US are not personal
but grow out of opposing principles,
and the voters are entitled to the fuli-
est information about these opposing
| proerams, between which they must
!, choose. AS you have refused to ADOPT
| the best and fairest method of giving
F.. this information, by joint DEBATE
! propose to make clear to the voters
| the difference between your PLATFORM
/ ana mine, by O series OF questions,
which shall put up to you during
the primary campaign.
"I now ask you the following nve
questions and request that you an
swer to each in a way that VIII en-
able the voters to know exactly where
you stand:
"Question No. 1. You admit that
land values are created by the COM
munity; why then should not the
community take all the increase In
values, instead of the small portion
you propose?
Question No 2. Do you favor q
constitutional convention composed
of delegates, elected from districts ac-
cording to population?
"Question No. 3. Do you favor the
initiative and referendum?
Question No. T. Do you favor the
recall of elective officials?
e. -.