"Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be displayed because of truth." — (Psalm 60:4)
"Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them." — (Isaiah 13:2)
Devoted To The Defense Of The Church Against All Errors And Innovations
Vol.VI No.XIII Pg.13-18
July/August 1944

Why The Norris-Wallace Debate Was Never Published

(By John A. Dickey, Written in 1935)

The developments in "the Norris case" took on various angles. There were legal phases, as well as religious. It was necessary for me to turn the case over to a lawyer, and I chose my esteemed brother-in-law, an able and respected attorney at Weatherford, Texas. The details of the case are on record and will appear in the following pages. Brother J. A. Dickey followed through with my attorney and with me, and as Luke wrote Theophilus, "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order," Brother Dickey wrote in order of these things. He sent his material to the papers but the editors evidently regarded the Norris case a closed affair and did not publish any of the material. Thus the whole field was left to Norris to sow his propaganda. Inasmuch as the facts collated in the data referred to have never been published, and are known to very few people, the Dickey article is being published as an important part of this record. -F. E. W. Jr.

* * * *

The question has been asked all over the brotherhood concerning the publication of the Norris-Wallace debate. All the people know is what has been said by Mr. Norris. He has said much over the radio and in his paper, and inasmuch as these statements have gone unchallenged, many of the brethren in all sections of the country have wondered why the book was never published.

Many expected, I am sure, to see some statement from Brother Wallace, but very soon after the debate was held he went to the hospital for a serious operation. Prior to his going to the hospital efforts were being made to have Mr. Norris deliver the manuscripts of the speakers so the proper corrections could be made for delivery to the printers. Dr. Norris had told Brother Wallace during the debate, and does not now deny, that he would let him have his manuscript for correction. Mr. Norris had refused to do this. He demanded that Brother Wallace come to Fort Worth and make proper corrections in Mr. Norris' office, claiming that the stenographer had made but one copy. But Brother Wallace remembered that one man went to Mr. Norris' office who didn't come away on his own power, so he refused to go there for this work. When it seemed that the matter was at an end, I asked Brother Wallace if I might write a report for the papers. He consented to this, and as I was making preparation for this report, a letter was received from Mr. Norris showing a willingness to release the manuscripts and publish the book just as the debate was delivered. I withheld my report, therefore, believing the book would be published. But it appears now that Mr. Norris was only stalling for time in order to get his side of the debate in book form to be delivered to those who had subscribed for the original book as advertised. So I am now presenting the belated report.

The Stenographic Report

Much correspondence passed between Brother Wallace, Mr. Norris, Brother Stubblefield, and Nolan Queen, of Weatherford, the Attorney who handled the legal, phases of the matter. It is not necessary to present a copy of all this. I will present just such matter as is relevant to show the entire trend of the case.

In a letter written to Nolan Queen, Feb. 18, 1935, Mr. Norris said: "He and his associates had the opportunity to take this debate down or to have paid for the stenographer that took his debate down." This does not correctly state the case. Before any conference was held relative to the publication Mr. Norris advertised the book for sale in the Fundamentalist of November 2, 1934. This issue came from the press on Friday before the debate began on Monday,

November, 4. On the day this issue came from the press Brother Stubblefield received a letter from Brother McQuiddy asking him to get in touch with Mr. Norris relative to the publication of the book. Brother Stubblefield went to Mr. Norris' office and talked to his secretary, and she gladly consented to Brother McQuiddy's handling the proposition upon certain stated terms. Brother Stubblefield requested her to get in touch with Brother McQuiddy at once. Evidently she did this, but the proposition she made was not acceptable to Brother McQuiddy. He therefore, wired Brother Stubblefield on Monday morning of the beginning date of the debate, asking him to go to Mr. Norris again and try and work out some kind of a mutual proposition. He left the matter with her for consummation and apparently nothing more was done. So the debate was advertised before any conference was held, and without consulting Brother Wallace at all. As no agreement was reached in the conferences held, Mr. Norris used one of his regular stenographers and employed another to take the notes of the discussion. This explains why we had no man present.

The debate closed on Nov. 7. Brother Wallace began a meeting in Lubbock the following Sunday. He received a telegram on Nov. 12 from Mr. Norris as follows:

Foy E. Wallace

Care John T. Smith Lubbock Tex

Contract Has Been Let And Debate Has Been Transcribed Have Only One Copy And Printers Are Under Contract To Deliver By Certain Time. Therefore Hope You Can Come To Fort Worth To Make Corrections And Changes In Your Address. In Case You Cannot Come Please Authorize One Of Your Brethren To Go Over Your Addresses And Make Necessary Corrections And Changes You Desire. Answer Collect..

J. Frank Norris.

Brother Wallace replied as follows on the same date:

J: Frank Norris

First Baptist Church Ft. Worth, Tex.

Cannot Consent To Let Book Go To Press Until I Have Personally Corrected Transcript. I Cannot Delegate This Work To Another. You Are Under Obligation To Furnish Me Copy Or Transcript Of Both Your Speeches And Mine Exactly As Delivered In Matter And Sequence, Until You Have Done So I Will Not Release It For Publication And Am Instructing My Attorney To Protect My Interests In The Matter Accordingly.

Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

It is interesting to note the speed with which the stenographers transcribed (?) these notes. Enough material for a four-hundred page book transcribed in four days! And too, she forgot to use a carbon sheet to make even one extra copy!

The Legal Correspondence

After a bit of correspondence had failed to produce the manuscript, and in view of the fact that Mr. Norris was advertising the book, it was deemed wise to get an injunction prohibiting him from publishing the book. Mr. Queen went into the Federal Court at Dallas, and had issued a restraining order, and calling upon Mr. Norris to appear in court the following day and show cause why the order should not be made permanent. Mr. Norris was in Detroit and could not be served, but upon his return he was in correspondence by telephone and letter, with Mr. Queen, and finally agreed to refrain from the publication of any part of Brother Wallace's speeches. Bear in mind, it was not possible to keep him from publishing his own speeches. This letter was sent to Judge Atwell for record, and as the end sought had been obtained, the cause for an injunction was removed, and the case cleared from the docket. There was no injunction issued at any time. Judge Atwell granted the contention of Brother Wallace as to his rights in the matter, but did not anticipate, I am sure, the trickery of Mr. Norris, and his scheming in getting his side of the debate published with much of Brother Wallace's material used in violation of his agreement to not do so. The injunction would have been granted at the time had not Mr. Norris agreed to not publish any part of Brother Wallace's speeches.

After this, we thought the matter was settled. Nothing had been said by Mr. Norris for several weeks, but the next thing we heard were the personal attacks he began to make upon Brother Wallace, and the assertion that he was going to publish the book regardless of what anyone might do. Brother Wallace and Mr. Queen again entered into correspondence with him. Under date of Feb. 18, 1935, Mr. Norris wrote Mr. Queen and finally agreed to let Brother Wallace examine both manuscripts under "proper supervision." Mr. Queen wrote the following letter under date of Feb. 20, which embodies all former propositions. The reader can readily decide for himself whether Brother Wallace was asking more than he was entitled to.

Feb. 20, 1935.

My dear Dr. Norris:

Your letter of the 18th received in regard to the publication of the Norris-Wallace discussion. It is unfortunate that two leaders of religious thought should have so much difficulty in accomplishing an end to which ordinary. people and laymen could have accomplished without any difficulty whatsoever:

It was because of this attitude that I filed an application for a restraining order in Federal court and upon your compliance with the substantial things demanded therein this cause was dismissed upon your written agreement that no part of the Wallace discussion would be published.

We still stand firmly on the proposition that there shall be no publication of the Wallace side of this discussion unless and until Wallace is given a free and full opportunity to examine, correct and revise if needed the notes or purported notes which were taken of this discussion. In addition to that after these notes are corrected and revised so as to be the substance of the debate, then after the notes are transcribed to galley sheets both of you should be permitted to examine and approve the subject matter, form and sequence of the speeches as they are to appear in published form. This is nothing but fair, right and common courtesy. And any other plan would be stupid, unfair, and unethical.

As I view the matter each of you has the absolute vested right, legal and moral, to see that your discussion after printed is exactly as delivered. You have that right and Wallace, has that right, and we are insisting upon that right and unless that is done there will be no publication of the Wallace side of this discussion.

(I am omitting here a paragraph relative to the charges Mr. Norris had made against Bro. Wallace. J. A. D.)

Now in regard to Wallace's revising, reviewing and correcting his transcript. We want the debate published exactly as delivered. We want his speeches printed as delivered and yours printed in substance as delivered, nothing more, nothing less. Now as to how this can be accomplished it is difficult for me to say. I am perfectly willing for Mr. Wallace to review, revise and correct his discussion in the presence of and with J. A. Dickey, of the Southside Church of Christ. Wallace's arguments were from notes and because of his authorities and citations it would be necessary for him to have access to all authorities cited to see that all quotations, citations, and authorities are accurate and correct. You are entitled to this and so is he. You have had this opportunity and it has all been in your possession. He has never seen nor been permitted to see even the shorthand notes of this discussion. How could you expect him or me to approve for publication, his debate covering six or seven hours of discussion without seeing the transcribed notes? You cannot in fairness even condone such practice much less demand it.

We want no right that is not ours, and do not want to deprive you of any right, legal or moral, that is yours. This discussion by two leaders of different lines of religious thought is of intense interest to students in these beliefs, and they should be given the opportunity of your and Wallace's study, thought and investigation in support of those beliefs.

We are perfectly willing to assure you that the transcribed notes will be returned to you in toto together with the revised and corrected arguments, authorities and citations of Mr. Wallace. Then you could examine same.

It will not be satisfactory for Mr. Wallace to come to your office and make his corrections and revisions, but he will do so here in my office or at the study and with Brother Dickey. In addition to that it will require probably ten days for this work to be done. This would necessitate Mr. Wallace from staying at home and for that reason I would like for it to be here or with Brother Dickey, but in no event would we expect you to come to Mr. Wallace's office to revise your notes and for no reason should we agree for him to come to your office to revise his and you should not expect it.

We would not agree that the notes as transcribed covers the whole space of this discussion until we could see them. If they do not then they will be so corrected as to be full and complete whether it requires one page or one hundred pages. And--if you have new matter in your notes we would demand additional space to answer your arguments.

If the debate is finally revised, approved and corrected by both of you then there would have to be a joint copyright so that neither of you could claim or demand exclusive right to the copyrighted-material. We are far more interested in the publication exactly as delivered than we are in any profits to be made by the publication of same, and Mr. Wallace's, interest is in the truth and not from any profits arising from the debate.

(A paragraph here is omitted. It relates further to the copy-right and profits and is not relevant. J. A. D.)

I want it distinctly understood that we do not want to get possession of these notes for copyright purposes but only for the purpose of seeing that the debate is published as delivered, and you need have no fear that we contemplate at this time any such thing.

If you prefer you can have Mr. Wallace do his work with C. M. Stubblefield or R. L. Whiteside to assure you of a safe return of the manuscript. This in view of the fact that none of our men helped you revise yours and we do not need any of your men to help us revise ours.

The only question apparently now between you is the proper procedure, time and place for Mr. Wallace to revise the discussion. Mr. Wallace has evangelistic engagements which cannot be ignored, and his next meeting begins next week, March 3rd., in West Virginia, and if this procedure is followed it must be done immediately or it will have to wait until his return about April 1st.

It would be much less expensive for Wallace if he could make his corrections here because he could stay in my home and save that additional expense, and since his debate was from notes I can't see where he would have any advantage regardless of where he may be in revising the debate. As you well know the procedure is for each man to take the transcript and at his leisure make changes and then submit the transcript as so changed and revised to the opposite party for approval.

Assuring you of my very keen interest and desire to dispose of this matter once and for all, and hoping that this plan will meet with your approval, and that I will hear from you immediately in regard thereto, I am,

Yours very truly,

Nolan Queen,


An Agreement Reached

That offer seemed to be fair and evidently Mr. Norris so thought, for under date of Feb. 22nd he replied as follows:

Dear Judge Queen:

Yours 20th instant at hand. I quite agree from your standpoint, a layman's standpoint, it looks like as if religious leaders should make agreements. But it is a difficult thing for you lawyers to understand the idiosyncrasies of preachers.

Most certainly I have no intention of publishing Mr. Wallace's side of the debate.

(Omitting here a personal attack upon Brother Wallace. J. A. D.)

I would agree to turn it over to him, and it be at your house or anywhere else, so long as I had a representative to see that my property was protected, and when I say property I mean the investment I made in taking it down. He had the right to take his own message down, but did not see fit to do so. The committee could have had it taken down, but they declined.

I appreciate your word that my rights would be protected, and personally I would leave it with you, and there would be no question, for all that I know of you is that you are a gentleman of the highest order. But lawyers dealing with lawyers is not like preachers dealing with preachers.

Therefore any way that he wants to make his corrections I will be glad to turn over to him his manuscript--at your place or anywhere else--I do not ask him to come to my office, as I do not want to humiliate or embarrass him in any way. But I must have the necessary protection of my own rights, and he can have whoever he wants to assist him.

Bear in mind I am not insisting on him publishing his side of the debate, or even asking him to publish it, for the way I have it planned for mine to be published, mine will be given a larger circulation, and my only purpose in writing my offer to give him this opportunity that it might be published is to show to the public I offered him every fair opportunity.

Yours very truly,

J. Frank Norris.


This sounds good, doesn't it? On the next day, Feb. 23, Mr. Queen replied as follows:

My Dear Dr. Norris:

(I am omitting the first paragraph in reply to the personal attack of Dr. Norris. J. A. D.)


We gladly accept your proposition for Mr. Wallace to unhampered, revise, correct and perfect his side of this discussion here in my adjoining office, and to see yours also; this to be done with any man you select to be with him, but it is to be strictly understood that his correction, revision and transcription of the notes on this debate are to be solely upon his own judgment and from his notes, and with the further understanding that same is to be as near absolutely identical with the speeches as delivered as is possible. It makes absolutely no difference where this is done, except, if done here, I have an extra office and a stenographer for the convenience where they would be unhampered and unmolested by anyone. That is the reason that we want the work done here, and they could certainly get no help from me for that is wholly out of my line.


It is further agreed and understood that you may have anyone present that you desire, and he may have anyone present he desires but of course not to such an extent, as to hamper and annoy him in his work. (A portion of a sentence is here blotted out. J. A. D.) After Mr. Wallace's unhampered revision and rewriting of any portion necessary of his discussion be made then before publication he is to be submitted the galley sheets of both sides of the discussion and you to receive the same with the right to correct same where there is error or mistake.


(This paragraph has to do with copy-rights and profits. J. A. D.)


It is to be distinctly understood by our accepting this offer that the authority of your representative will be restricted to the protection of your manuscript, and that he shall have no authority over Mr. Wallace's work in revising, correcting, or supplying missing parts, and in the arrangement and form of his speeches. In these particulars it must be understood that he shall have absolute freedom. Then, too, in the finished form we should expect it to show the time used by each speaker and the sequence of said speeches and the alternation of the speeches to be exactly as delivered.


(This paragraph has to do with rights of possession. J. A. D.)

I feel very happy to feel now that we shall have a happy solution of this unpleasant matter, and hope that Mr. Wallace may be able to start by next Tuesday; and wish you would advise me upon receipt of this letter when the transcript will be delivered here by your representative as Mr. Wallace will be compelled to postpone an engagement in West Virginia which is now set for March 3rd.

I am presuming that the shorthand notes have been transcribed and are available for our use.

Thanking you for your prompt attention to this matter, and assuring you of my co-operation toward a successful solution of this matter, and hoping to hear from you immediately, I am,

Yours very respectfully,

Nolan Queen.


* * * *

This letter shows that the offer was accepted, but in the published book, on page 5, after he had reproduced his letter of the 22nd, he says his offer was declined. The letter was sent registered, and was receipted for by his secretary on Feb. 24th, so you can draw your own conclusions.

Nothing more was heard from him until a letter was received from Detroit under date of March 6th. He doesn't mention the receipt of Mr. Queen's letter at all, but writes as follows:

* * * *

My Dear Judge:

Just returned from Detroit, and leaving for Houston, but will be back Saturday and be here several days. In the meantime will be very glad to confer with you with reference to Mr. Wallace's side of the debate.

In addition to my former proposition, I will make these:

First: The debates to be published just as delivered with minor corrections, spelling, grammatical errors so on--no essential change, and the affidavits of the stenographers taking down the addresses accompany the publication of each debate, and stating that the debates are published as delivered.

This could be easily handled for as certified to by the stenographers and delivered to the publishers who in turn could certify that the debates as published as certified to by the stenographers. This is what the public wants; namely, just as the debates were delivered.

I repeat any necessary corrections of errors in spelling, English, punctuation, etc., should be made.

Second: That we divide the profits on a fifty-fifty basis after all expenses are paid, and that Mr. Wallace or his representative be given access to all records pertaining to the cost, sales - in fact all financial records pertaining to the book.

Yours very truly,

J. Frank Norris.

* * * *

He says in his book, page 5, that this was declined. Well, let's see. On March 8th, Mr. Queen wrote as follows:

The Agreement Ignored

My dear Dr. Norris:

Your letter of the 6th received. Because of cases pending in the Federal Court, which will be set next Monday, and tried at some later date in this term it will be impossible for me to negotiate with you further until I dispose of these cases which I hope to do at my earliest convenience.

I might add however in passing, that I am not willing by any means to admit that the stenographer's notes are correct until seen, nor would we agree to be bound by their affirmation that they are correct. You and Wallace will each know very well about what was said, and about the arguments used. I shall take this matter up with you at the earliest date possible.

Assuring you of my esteem, I am,

Yours very sincerely,

Nolan Queen,


* * * *

Why would Mr. Norris say that his propositions had been declined? Mr. Queen was kept busy in court and did not write Mr. Norris further, but to his amazement he received the following letter under date of March 26th.

Dear Sir:

As attorney representing Rev. Foy E. Wallace, I am writing you. Since he declines to accept my proposition in letters dated, Feb. 22, and March 6th, to publish his side of the debate, this is to offer him his entire stenographic report of the debate provided he pays the cost I was out in having his side of the debate reported.

Yours very sincerely,

J. Frank Norris.


* * * *

Mr. Queen replied the following day as follows:

My dear Dr. Norris:

Your letter of the 26th. received, but I did not know that your proposition had been declined, and we were very, very anxious to publish this debate as delivered.

Wish you would advise me by return mail what the stenographical cost is of preparing his side of the debate, and of course, if we take it, it will be with the strict understanding and agreement that no part of same will be used by you in the sale of your part of the debate in any way or manner. I am sure that we understand this matter.

I shall thank you to advise me by return mail, and oblige.

Yours very respectfully,

Nolan Queen.

* * * *

Mr. Queen has had no word from him. Mr. Norris book was from the press, and evidently all the delay and correspondence was for one purpose and one only, and that was, to get his book from the press. He agreed to use none of Brother Wallace's material in his book, but he quotes from Brother Wallace on every page of his book. Had he done as he agreed, he could have made his affirmative a speech on the negative at all. People all over the country, who had ordered the book, expecting to get the whole debate, were sent this book instead. Brother Crews, of Pensacola, Fla., wrote them and told them he did not want anything else but the whole debate, and if they could not send that, to return the dollar he had paid, but to his surprise and contrary to his request, they sent the garbled affair called the Norris-Wallace Debate. If this can be done, then there is no justice.

No doubt, too, Mr. Norris found that the book could not be delivered for the promised price of $1.00 and proceeded as he did in order to keep from suffering a loss financially.

Unfulfilled Promises

I want to make some observations. In the issue of the Fundamentalist of November 2, on page 1, column 1, we have this statement: "The entire proceedings will be taken down and published in a book. The first edition will be 10,000 copies." In the issue of November 9, immediately after the debate was finished we have on the front page this language: "ENTIRE DEBATE STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED, IN BOOK FORM, NOW OFFERED FOR $1.00 FOR FIRST 2,000." Does this seem to you to place Mr. Norris in the position of being under obligation to deliver the book? Does it sound to you like he had obtained money fraudulently? And, I am wondering what the printers did about the contract he let for the printing of the book. He said in the first telegram to Brother Wallace that the contract had been let. Again, in the issue of November 9, page 7, column 4, we have this language:

"How unfortunate it is that those who could not attend the Norris-Wallace Debate can secure all the addresses, taken down word for word by the stenographers, in printed form, for permanent record. Every detail of the debate, every personal reference, every controverted point, will be settled for posterity by the printed book taken down by two stenographers.

"The speakers will have the opportunity of correcting any mistake in the notes of the stenographers, correcting wording, punctuation, etc., that be inaccurate. Every body who heard the debate will want a copy. Those who didn't hear the debate will certainly be anxious to have the book."

He admits here that there would be mistakes to correct, yet in one letter to Mr. Queen he states that an affidavit by the stenographers would certify to the correctness of the report without any such corrections being necessary.

But, again, In the issue of December 7, 1934, page 2, column 2, we have this statement:

"He requested that I give him the opportunity to make corrections or changes in his addresses which I very readily agreed to do."

But this promise was never fulfilled.

The Financial Racket

In several letters and also in the Fundamentalist, he has made mention several times of the cost of reporting the debate, and saying; that Brother Wallace received a handsome sum for his work, but that he did not receive one cent for his. Those who attended the debate remember that at every door, save one, admission was charged.

They were so anxious for this fee that those who came for the afternoon session and wanted to remain for' the night session and not go home, were required to leave the building, under the pretext of having the janitors clean up the house. I know whereof I speak, for his secretary asked me one afternoon to request the people to leave. The doors were not opened again until thirty minutes before time for the debate to begin. This forced the people to stand in the streets like a mob waiting to enter a circus. When the doors were opened, it was a mad scramble to get in. I got caught in one of them myself, and afterwards I did as hundreds of others did, I went to one of the doors where admission was charged. A sign was placed at one door announcing it as for the members of the Church of Christ. The crowd was composed largely of such members, so you can imagine the jamb at this door. They estimate the building will hold 5,000 people. It was filled at every session but one. Estimate for yourself the money taken for admissions at ten cents. If only half that number paid it would amount to $250 per session, and there were six sessions. Whoever heard of admissions being charged for a religious discussion? I know there was expense attached for lights etc., but it didn't cost that much. In addition to this, envelopes were passed out for people to place their money in for the contemplated book. Many orders were received, and in a letter to the "Beloved" John Rice, written from Detroit of December 1, he said, "The office reports that orders are coming in fifty to one hundred a day." So you can see at whose expense the stenographers worked. It is customary to take orders before a book is published in order that it might be financed, and this was the reason he did this. But to say he did it at a great expense to himself seems far from facts. And his secretary had told Brother Stubblefield they had no money to finance the proposition. So, if a book that would have made 400 pages could have been sold for $1.00, how about the profits made from the sale of the one he has put out that numbers 190 pages and sells for the same price? I do not know whether he sent this book to subscribers that expected to get the whole debate or not, but if he did, it seems to me they have proper recourse in the courts. If a thing like this can be panned off on the public and does not violate the postal laws, then many people are serving terms in the penitentiary who ought not to be there.

The Fraudulent Publication

There were several things in evidence during the discussion to furnish us grounds to believe that considerable material was being prepared for the record which was not introduced in the speeches. I personally saw much of his prepared manuscript, that was in excellent preparation for a publisher, and I personally know that very little of this was used in his speeches, I have a copy of the book he has published, but not having Brother Wallace's notes, I do not know how much added material there is in the book. We believe, too, that much of the material of Brother Wallace that would have been damaging to Mr. Norris was left out. There were many lapses in the work of the stenographers who took Brother Wallace's speeches. Even though Mr. Norris claims that only one copy was made, Mr. Queen made an offer to pay for having another copy made, and also offered to make bond for the safe return of the copy Mr. Norris claimed to have. Could anything be fairer? When this had no effect, it was then that Mr. Queen went into court and had a restraining order issued, and the fact that Mr. Norris agreed to yield to this order without attempting to show cause for his actions, is a tacit admission that his course was indefensible and his cause unrighteous. Thus, rather than deliver Brother Wallace a copy of the transcript for examination, he would forfeit the book. Yet he used the court action which he forced Brother Wallace to take as an alibi to deceive the people in an effort to shift the responsibility of the unpublished debate from himself to Brother Wallace.

Brother Wallace wrote Mr. Norris that those who knew him (Norris) best did not believe that he would ever allow some things that happened in the debate to his embarrassment, such as his denial of the inspiration of Mark 16, the complete blasting of his Baptist-Premillennial-Fundamentalist doctrines, together with his unfair conduct on the last night of the debate, to go into the record. This seems to be the truth. If he so thoroughly annihilated his opponent, he ought to be the first man to get it before the people, rather than use every subterfuge to keep it from the press. I doubt very seriously whether the manuscript could really be produced for any sum of money. He has made Brother Wallace an offer to let him have it, provided Brother Wallace would pay the cost of the stenographer, but I would certainly want to examine it closely to see the condition of it, before I would accept any such proposition.

A Final Letter

But there is one paragraph from a letter Brother Wallace sent to Mr. Norris under date of Feb. 12, 1935, I think is worth including in this document. Article six of that letter is as follows:

"There is yet another fact on record of which you should be periodically reminded. A few days before the Fort Worth debate I received in Nashville, Tenn., a challenge from you to hold further discussions in San Antonio and Dallas. I accepted your challenge on the condition that I should be invited, and the discussions endorsed, by the respective Churches of Christ. You wired me that the debates were arranged. The churches in Dallas then authorized me to accept your challenge. I did so and announced it on the last day of the Fort Worth debate. But you--Dr. J. Frank Norris, the champion of Baptist Fundamentalism, but denier of the inspiration of Mark 16--after all your challenging, with your name signed to the telegrams and letters, calling in advance for more debates, refused to debate in Dallas where you said it was already "arranged," or anywhere else--with me. The circumstances of this refusal to debate again was evidence that you felt your defeat and furnished further grounds for our belief that you would never allow an accurate report of the Fort Worth debate to take its number on the shelves of the congressional library in Washington, D. C."

In a closing paragraph he further wrote Dr. Norris: "In a final word, we are not to be intimidated by your mad raving and vain vaunting, nor shall we be inveigled into shifting the issue to the defense of myself or my character against false implications of your letter and the malicious nature of your personal attacks in the press, on the air, and in the mails. That you have descended to the plane of political lampoon, and resorted to a campaign of calumny, discloses your own improbity of character, and reveals your own consciousness of your utter defeat on the issues of debate."

* * * *

Since I began preparing this article, I have learned of many who have received the book Mr. Norris has put out in place of the one they ordered. I would be glad to have a card from every person who reads this article who received one of the books. The book has this on the outside of the cover page: "NORRIS-WALL ACE DEBATE DELIVERED IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS, NOV. 5TH, 6TH, AND 7TH, 1934. READ THE DEBATE THAT SO THOROUGHLY ANNIHILATED THE OPPONENT THAT HE REFUSED TO HAVE HIS SIDE PUBLISHED."

Can you beat that?

The last issue of the Fundamentalist, April 9, is filled with ravings of his Baptist brethren complimenting him on his great victory. They had read the one-sided debate. I wouldn't be that unfair if I were to read a debate the devil engaged in. Even he could win a victory if you just had his side. Even Ben M. Bogard praises Norris to the skies, and claims a great victory for Norris and the Baptist cause. At least, he didn't include Christ in this. You know the "Beloved" John R. Rice publishes a paper in Dallas, called "The Sword of the Lord and of John R. Rice," but Mr. Bogard is hardly this bold. Oh well, you know Baptists can't be lost. He even has a commendatory article from Charles M. Neal, of Winchester, Ky. I have heard of him, once. He is designated as one of the nationally known ministers of the Church of Christ. I guess I don't know the "nationally known" men. Edward Vernon Wood and his father, Eugene V. Wood, and Frank M. Mullins, are also "nationally known" men to some people. Practically the entire issue of the above date was given over to the debate and the book. I wonder why! I have never seen, in all my life, such howling as has been going on since the debate. What victories! But I am persuaded they don't want any more such victories.

This is a lengthy article to be sure. I am sorry there has been so much delay and expense attached, and the biggest part of this expense borne by Brother Wallace and his Attorney, Mr. Queen.