The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-07-26

$ challenge for a debate. MT. simon in his formally signe' ,tter to the Democrat not onl rofessed his party's willingness t rect Mayor Jasper McLevy, De ere Allen or any other outstand lg Socialist in a public debate, bu resented in person the Socialist abor party's orator, John E uinn, who fills the role also of ma onal organizer.
 The challenge to a debate wa urled on July 18th by A. chairman of the sc lalists' town committee. Tn ocialist- Labor party after tryin l vain to make a contact for tn urpose of staging the public eS hange of opinions issued the fol ,wing statement today:
 New Haven, Conn.,,
 July 26th, 1885. Editor the Waterbury
 Democrat:
 On uly 18th an open let. ter signed by MT. A. J. Hinkel- man, town chairman of the socialist Iarty in Waterbury, appeared in the press of this city challenging the socialist labor party to a debate.
 The letter stated i'm effect that the socialist labor party had been maliciously misrep. resenting the socialist party. With particular reference to one lecture of the socialist labor party, the letter states that "not only did your speak, Cr lnisrepresent, but in doing so utilized such lurid adjec- tives in describing, what he presumes to be socialism, that . member of the socialist party who was present felt 1t neecs. sary to take issue with him .. Therefore we stand whole. heartedly in suppOrt of the ac. ton taken by our own member and hereby challenge .. ." etc. In conclusion, the letter states specifically and emphat- ically 6. we will debate on any grounds which will illus trate the difference in aim and structure of the two parties"
 This challenge was promptly accepted by the socialist labor party and a letter lon Ale with the socialist party local in Wa tcrbury) was sent urging them if possible to secure the serv. ices of one of their Outsta1d. ing speakers. such as Jasper MacLevy or Devere Allen, to debate against John F. Quinn, national organizer of the So- cialist labor party, who hap pens to be in Connecticut for a short time.
 Nothing further was heard from the Socialist Party local here until I was forced to phone from New Haven for inc formation. MT. R. O. Fisher, representing the Socialist Party, to whom I spoke, ad- yised me that this same so- called Socialist Party which had so righteously risen in its own defense, had decided not to 20 through with the debate.
 May I state that the Socialist Labor Party stands ready at all times to debate with the So- cialist Party and welcomes the opportunity at any time to prove its charges that the So. cialist Party is nothing but a machine for misrepresenting Socialism, and that in doing so 1t is paving the way in this country for . similar reaction as that which exists in Ger- many; a reaction whose road was paved by the Social Dem- ocrats Socialist Party) of Germany. We feel certain that when intelligent workers bee gin to think they will un. doubtedly repudiate an organ. ization which not only misrep. resents Socialism, but in mat. ters such as this debate ex. poses itself to justifiable scOrn.
 1t is interesting to note that Mir. Fisher himself, who was at first scheduled to be the de- bater, expressed disgust with \ his own organization. I believe 1t is q fair question to wonder how he, or any other worker, can still upport such an organ. ization, or rather dis0rganiza. ton.
 This incident of rising wrath. fully in defense of their organ. ization and subsiding quickly when they realized the conse- quence of their brash action has q parallel in the poctical history of France. Readers may have heard of the time when
 E "The King of France with
 thirty thousand men
 Marched up the hill-and
 then marched down
 again."
 Such is the Socialist Party, marching up a hill with ban. ners waving defiantly; then with their tails between their legs.S turning quickly back to