Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-07-21
OSBORNE URGES COLBY TO ACCEPT
CHALLENGE To STATEWIDE DEBATE

! for separate meetings addressed by
you and me separately. Don't you
think it would be a good thing for
the Progressive party for you and me
to proclaim Progressive principles to
the larger number rather than the
smaller number? am of the opinion
that in the course of the campaign
we can get the attention of more
than double the number OF people
that you and 1 can reach by holding
separate meetings. Don't you think
you can serve the Progressive cause
better by addressing large audiences
than you can by addressing small
audiences?
Seeing the Horse or Man.
I'm your letter you state in effect
that seven years of actual campaign
ing among the Progressives of the
State have given them sufficient
knowledge OF your qualifications and
shortcomings. 1t is true that you
have been much heard of throughout
the State, but l doubt IL one-flfth of
the Progresslves who voted for
Roosevelt last fall have seen you or
heard you. You have not held pub
lie office during the last five years,
and your campaigning, with the ex-
ceptien of last year, has been con-
fined almost exclusively to Essex
county. DON'T you think it would be
a good thing for you and the party
If all the F'rogressives who are to
participate III the selection of a cam
didate for Governor could actually
see you and hear you personally?
II am convinced that the many
Progressives who have not seen
either of US or heard us discuss Pro-
gressive principles would be glad to
see both you and me, to size us up
personally and make up their minds,
not from hearsay but from their own
impressions, which of us they prefer
for the party's standard bearer in
the fight with the old party machines,
and which of us they think best
equipped to perform the duties of the
governorShip?
Has any better way been devised
for buying a horse or hiring a man
than to actually see the horse or the
man for yourself?
IF, as your letter suggests, there
is not enough difference between us.
about principles, to be worth debat- /
ing, then there would be no debate
we would simply divide the time,
each of us presenting his views in his
own way and without any summing
up or 'rejoinder' How could that!
degenerate into a purely personal
wrangle,' as you suggest in your
letter? 1t takes two to make a.
wrangle. l am as averse to personal
wrangles' as you are, and 1 would
under no circumstances participate in
one. There is not the slightest dan
ger of a personal wrangle' between,
you and me in such discussion as I
have proposed,
The Raymond Incident.
II well remember that five years
ago YOU thought very highly of po-
litical debate. You were then a can
didate against Mr.. Raymond for the
Republican nomination for the Sem
ate, You insisted repeatedly that he
meet you in joint discussion on the
same platform, and the reasons you
assigned to him for declining to do
so were not complimentary. You
then laid down a rule for the conduct
of political campaigns that sounded
very wise--it still seems sound to me
and hope it does to you. This Is
what you said as quoted in the New
ark Evening News of September II,
1908: When candidates go before the
people, asking for their support, they
ought to be ready for fight, a
rough and tumble combat, if you
want to call it that, and present each
his side of the case"
Isn't that a good rule now? If
not, why not?
If it was a desirable thing for you
to appear upon the same platform,
before the same audiences, with the
man with whom you were contesting |