Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1805-06-01
Fr0mth i3Qston Csatiael.

y Earth, ihakes beneath them and heaven raars a.
Bun nothing sasss them from The searfs they
Il love-
Cowper.
The astonishing progress which the prac-
tice OF duelling has made 10 many parts of
the world, rendersit a subject Of contcm.s
plation awful and important. Its presa-
Ience caunotbe checked with too much vi
sgor, nor ats consequences exposed two Of
ten. or ia colorssoo impressive. Powerful.
sly,feeiing the magnitude. of the subject. 1
an, unwilling 20 rellnqaish it, without some.
further observations. Though few will be
unwilling to acknowledge that hewho cflal-
lenges another toto the field and kills his
adversary commits the crime of murder,
yet circumstances AID arguments Of alleyi.
satisu and even Of justification, have been
urged III favor of the person challenged.
The following observations are generally
applicable 10 both the parties, but still i
will be proper to take "a more intimate view
of what's considered the favored side.:
In the first place the person challenged
hus been justified on eiae principles OF the
natural right of self defence! Is il a
RICH: to go into the field and meet an an,ag-
onistwith the deliberate and express design
either 70 slay or be slain? II cannot be so
dehni,ive and extensive. This'same honor
that compsls one man TO accept, viii also
compel another, either Tor real 8. imagina.
ry injury, to give achallenge. j have only
then to offer a trivial insult TO the man
whom / would destroy. He is man Of
honor and the stain must be washed awa5'
by blood. Asa gentleman he must chal-.
lenge, as a gentleman | must accepts we
must meet, one or both must fall. Where
is the difference in our criminallty? Can
The eye of dispassiouate reason discover
any thing favorable on my side Ifmy ad.
yerssry falls, am who offered the first IN
jury, innocent of his blood And if ! fall,
ishe who is compelled by the inconsistent
law ofhon0v to give the challenge guilty of
muroer The absurdity of the proposition
is apparent. Self.defence can be applica.
bic, IS an excuse for homicide, in no case,
but whe nwe- ares attacked, rWrlloat our co.
operation, and no, ether resource; no retreat,
no refuge isleft for our safety but the death
of the assailant.
1t has also been urged, that "the ae-
ceptanee of the challenge, and thus giving
an enemy an opportunity to obtain revenge,
is no more than the politeness of a generous
and heroic disposition. But it is this We
ry boffeness that we contend is criminal.
tits politeness which originates in that
false honor which we condemn. Ii is a
generosity, a heroisei, destructive of every
moral principle, and therefore cannot be a
justification of the vices 1t produces. Be-.
sides, he who ins,igates, temp,s or even
permits, when he Can prevent the commits
sion of crime, is himself guilty.. The ac-
tive perpetrators are the instruments of sin
in his hands. He is, least an accessory
to the crime committed, and at the bar Of
conscience, if not C law, he is principal.
The persons challenged can prevent the ef.
fusion ot'6lood they ore even present, aid
ing and assisting in the execution ofthe
crime. Can they be innocent? No, they
are dOu6ly guilty. lfdeath does net ensue,
their heart is murderous; they have ASSUME
ed the disposition of the temper; they
practise the evils of satan, and join in
league to mar the Innocence and repose of
mankind. If blood is saed in consequence
of their acceptance he additional crime of
actual murder presses and stains their con.
sciences. fhis plea cannot therefore avail.
1T is just, between the parties, because
each has an equal chance OF prevailing
the combat" Granting the equality, the
fssuewil not decide the justice Of he cause,
The first offender and the person injured
are alike liable to fill. and the death Of e..
ther will be no compensation for the injury,
or proof of the Innocence of the survivor.
Further, we may reply that We haveal
ready shewn that man has no right,to sport
away his existence for the qualification OF