"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.19-21
July/August 1944

Developments From November 10, 1934 To March 27,1935

(F. E. W. Jr.)

From what has already gone before in this record of facts, the readers can clearly see why it was necessary for us to engage legal assistance in dealing with Norris. We had seen enough during the debate to know that Norris and his lieutenants had made premeditated plans to publish a mutilated report of the debate. It was evident to us that they were rushing their plans to get the book off the press before it could be stopped by legal action. The repeated references in Norris' letters to us that he had "planned" for and "anticipated" what took place is further evidence that we had not missed our calculations in the conclusions drawn. Therefore, immediately after the debate, enroute to my meeting in Lubbock, Texas, I went to see my attorney at Weatherford, Texas, and requested him to take charge of the matter. The result of the first letter from Attorney Nolan Queen to Norris was the telegrams exchanged which appear on page 11. When Norris saw that we meant business, he asked for a conference. Before going into conference with Norris my attorney sent me the telegram inserted on this page. Being convinced of the designs of the whole Norris group, I replied with the telegram also inserted in the opposite column. Developments proved that I was right.

November the Tenth, Nineteen Hundred Thirty Four.

My dear Dr. Norris:

At the request of Foy E. Wallace I am writing you in regard to the debate recently held there in your church between you and Mr. Wallace. It has been made known to him that you are expecting to publish for sale this discussion between you.

Mr. Wallace has no objection whatever to your publishing and selling this work and discussion; provided however, that both the transcript and the galley sheets are given him for approval and inspection before typing and publishing in book form. He desires to approve same in every detail, both in subject matter, sequence of speeches and form. When he has approved these then you may publish and offer same for sale, without any rights reserved however, and he shall have and does have the same rights in regard thereto. If you desire all rights and copyright as well, you will of course have to make a satisfactory arrangement with him in regard thereto.

Of course you understand that he has the same rights in the matter that you have and no more; neither do you have any more rights in the matter than he has and I feel sure there can be no misunderstanding in the matter and I wish you would advise me immediately whether you view this matter as we do.

Realizing that time is short, we feel that the matter should be worked out immediately to your mutual satisfaction without any trouble or misunderstanding between you. You will not of course publish any part of said debate or discussion without submitting to him for his approval and as stated when he has approved the transcript galley sheets and form, then you may do as you please with same, and he has the same rights and is claiming them and this is to so advise you.

Please let me hear from you by return mail in order that we may know whether you view this matter as we do. With very kind personal regards I am Yours very truly,

Nolan Queen


Foy E Wallace= Hilton Hotel Lubbock Texas= Norris desires me meet him and attorney in the morning should I delay injuction until after that or attend to it tonight if possible= Nolan Queen.

Nolan Queen, Attorney= Weatherford TEX= We are dealing with tricksters my opinion is if conference with them is delayed until injunction obtained you can deal more effectively stop they are seeking further advantage and are likely going on with book meanwhile stop but I leave the matter wholly to your judgment in handling= Foy E. Wallace.

November the Fourteenth, Nineteen Hundred Thirty Four

My dear Foy:

I have just returned from Fort Worth where I spent the day with Mr. Collins, he being the attorney for Dr. Norris. We had some rather frank discussions about the legal aspects and I just put the cards on the table and told him that I was going to get a written statement over Norris's signature meeting certain of my requirements or I would obtain the Restraining Order today. I advised him frankly that everything was prepared, even to the order itself and that I had them there with me in my brief case.

Dr. Norris did not appear but he got in contact with him and at one o'clock this afternoon we met again and I obtained the enclosed letter which is self explanatory.

Now here seems to be the facts. There is really in fact but one copy of the transcript. A copy would have cost nearly as much as the original because reporters charge nearly as much for a copy as they do the original. We could probably have another copy made but am sure it would cost around $100. I made no statement whatever binding you in any way or manner and took the letter with the understanding that it would be forwarded to you for attention.

I am inclined to the view that this is the best way out of it. Of course you will have to come to Fort Worth after your meeting is over but they will pay transportation both ways and your expenses while in Fort Worth. I see no other way, there being really but one transcript. Then when that is done, we shall have the same rights in regard to the publication as he and should have the same rights to review his speech, material, etc; as we do our own. This authority however was not given. There has been no agreement made with them, except they are to withhold publication for your approval of the transcript. I made this clear also; that we had the same rights in regard to publication as they; that we desired the speeches transcribed exactly as written and delivered by both of you and that we would in no event tolerate the publication of these discussions as a debate unless published in toto, verbatim from beginning to end.

Look this over, advise me candidly what you think at your earliest convenience and I shall then communicate with Dr. Norris.

Sincerely yours,

Nolan Queen

Comments On Revision Of Transcript

Commenting upon the foregoing matter, I submitted to my attorney the following memorandums for his reflection and disposal.

First: It would have required not less than two weeks for me to have given proper attention to the examination of the transcript, including both sets of speeches. Thirty days should have been set aside for such a task. I could not take that time out of my schedule. Norris did not think that I had nothing else to do. He knew that he was making an unfair and unequal demand which I could not meet, and had he believed that I could have done so, he would not have made it; after he made it, had I been able to keep it, he would not have stood by it, as the later developments proved.

Second: A pledge was made by Mr. Norris before thousands of people to deliver me a full set of the transcript for examination. The cost of doing this was insignificant, but he had obligated himself to do it. To take away all excuse for not doing it, we offered to pay the full cost. He ignored this, and kept prating about "costs" and etc. and so on, just talking and stalling.

Third: We could not consent to release my speeches to him for publication in the garbled form he had planned to publish them. I therefore refused to permit him to publish anything purporting to be my speeches unless and until he should, according to-all fair, ethical and honorable procedure, furnish me with a complete set of all speeches delivered, both his own and my own. Anyone can see that I could not determine the accuracy of the transcript without having it all, to ascertain if there had been any additions or subtractions from the matter in his addresses, and to check references in my speeches against certain references in his. He took that privilege but denied it to me. If he claimed it for himself--why should I not be given the same privilege? I simply claimed equal advantage. But he refused to release the transcript. And I, accordingly, refused to release him from that obligation. Had Mr. Norris come across like any honorable man would have done, and had furnished us with the transcript to correct and approve, there would have been no difficulties in the publication of the debate. Except, of course, we all know that he would never have allowed the actual debate to go to the public in print.

Fourth: If the cost of making the transcript was the only thing in the way -- we removed it when we offered to pay that cost, in the very amount that he named. This offer to pay for the cost of making the copy tested whether or not he was sincere, and killed his only alibi, up to that time.

Fifth: In addition to examining the transcribed copy, it would also have been necessary for us to examine the printed proof-sheets, in galley form, after the transcript had been set in type, in order to check the same by the corrected copy. Any printer understands that; so does any honorable debater. This is due regularity, and not until that usual privilege had been extended could I have allowed the book to go to press as representing my part of the debate.

Sixth: With reference to the Neal-Wallace Debate, Mr. Norris' assertions are wholly false. The Gospel Advocate Company printed the Neal-Wallace Debate. Leon B. Mc Quiddy signed proper contracts with Chas. M. Neal covering the details of that publication, and they were all carried out completely. In the first place, we submitted to Neal a full set of the transcribed notes of both sides of that discussion for his examination at his leisure. When I had made my corrections, the corrected transcript was again submitted to him; and his corrected transcript was submitted to me. It was agreed that both parties were to have the liberty to make necessary insertions to complete an argument or supply anything the reported had failed to get -- which is so often necessary. But it was agreed that the proofs of the entire discussion, after all corrections, revisions and insertions had been made, would be submitted to both parties for their final approval. This agreement was carried out to the letter, and a written statement of acceptance and approval was signed by Charles M. Neal, before the debate went to the press. That document is on, page 36-37 of this issue.

Seventh: Finally, we had a case against Mr. Morris, both morally and legally, and we held out for it. Only as a last resort did I consent to examine the transcript under the supervision of his "representative," and only for the sake of the cause of truth would I ever have yielded to such an insult. But after I had gone to that limit--far beyond the second mile--Norris refused even then to come through with his own proposition. It was his diabolical conduct that forced us to restrain him in Federal Court from carrying out his schemes to bring out a fraudulent publication of the Fort Worth Debate. --F. E. W. Jr.

After considering the foregoing suggestions, my attorney wrote Norris as follows:

November the Twentieth, Nineteen Hundred Thirty Four.

My dear Dr. Norris:

Your letter of the 14th instant was transmitted to Foy E. Wallace; Lubbock, Texas and I have just received a reply from him in regard thereto.

We want it strictly understood, as heretofore agreed, that there will be no publication of any part of the debate unless and until Mr. Wallace has been furnished a complete transcript of both discussions, in toto, and verbatim and has also been furnished the galley sheets after the corrected transcript has been typed. This is in line with your agreement and with the public announcement made by you from the platform.

Now in regard to the time and manner of Mr. Wallace reviewing and correcting same. His schedule is full. His time is fully occupied, the same as yours and it is next to impossible for him to come to Fort Worth for several days or a week because of prior engagements. Now what we would like is for him to be furnished this transcript in toto, and he to have a reasonable time to review same, including both sides of the discussion. If you fear that same will not be returned to you, he will make any reasonable bond to assure you that same will be returned exactly as given him, and another in the proper and corrected form. After that before same is offered for sale, or finally published he would also demand the right to review and correct the galley sheets before published in book form for sale.

I see no reason, in law or equity, for this requirement to be even questioned by you. You would demand and "have that right and any other man whose work or discussion is to be offered for sale. If this and the other requirements above cannot be extended by you then we do not want the debate published and will use every effort to prohibit the circulation of works as Mr. Wallace's which may or may not be his. We do not expect this debate to be published and sold and circulated all over this country unless we know it is as delivered in every detail and you would make the same demand under similar circumstances and would certainly be justified in so doing.

If you preferred, we could transcribed the notes at our expense and then correct, revise and review same. But even then he would require a reasonable time to do that.

Then after the transcript has been reviewed, corrected and approved by Mr. Wallace, as to both sides of the discussion, including references, citations, authorities, sequence of speeches etc. he would release all his rights to said debate to you for publication and sale for 2,000 copies of the book and 5,000 additional copies at production cost.

This letter is in line with the views and attitude of Mr. Wallace and also of my own and I shall thank you to let me hear from you at once in regard to same.

Thanking you for your prompt attention to this matter and with kind regards I am

Yours very truly,

Nolan Queen