Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-12-23

taZeweii were seventy read "A ,3rd
time, aud pasSsd.--Sent TO the Senate for
their concurrence.
MIR. Miller, from the Select Committee
to which the memorial of Jones Green,
returned as delegate from the county
of Stafford, was referred, presented a
REPORT, as follows:
The committee, To whom was referred the
memorial OF Jones Green, who was returned
as "a member OF the present General Assembly,
from the county OF Stafford, have had the same
under consideration, together with the accom-
panying documents, and after much deibera-
ton, and a careful examination of all the facts
and authorities connected with the ssbject.
have come 10 the following report aud resoIu-
tons thereon, which they respectful, submit
10 the House OF Dele gates:
Ii appears to Your committee, that some
time after Jones Green had h. en duly elected
Il member of the present House of Delegates,
from the county of Stafford. he was, without
any previous quarrel, o cau,e for quarrel, as
lar as yonr committee can discover, Suddenly,
pereInptoriiy and vehcmently challenged by
one John STROLLER TO fight upon the spot with
pistols. | HAT the memoriaiist, having 40 time
or opportunity Tor reflection, agreed TO fight
~ the manner proposed. An attempt was made
to procure pistol immediately, but the attempt
proving Unsuccessful, the aforesaid Strothe,
produced tvs dirks, and proposed terminating
TIE dispute AT once with these weapons. THIS
sangnihary conflict was, however prevented
by the timely and humane lnterposition Of Sc
veral gentlemen who were present, aud who
declared that they would not witness such a
barbarons scene u must be evident that IL
this affair had ended here. that il woulA have
borne the aspect of sudden aud nm remedi-
tated quarrel only: aud il at that time il had
been carried 10 eXuemities, and the fight had
taken place, il would have been entirely of the
nature of rencourttr, and not of that formal
anu deliberate character which is reprobated
5y TIE Act to suppress duelilng within this
commonwealth 40 uer' has been defined
BY the best writers. to be a premeditated
act otherwise, il is a rencouuter." The
preamble 10 the law in question, expressly
mentions the custom of duelling, which il de-
nomlnaies barbarOus and by this direct re-
terence to the ancient custom of duelling. by
"hich, ~ rs wei, known, that disputes were al
ways settled with great elaboration, clearly
shews that deliberate dnelliug, founded on
REORGANIZATION, constituted the offence in
tended TO be suppressed. This distinction
between sudden and premeditated combats is
also recognized by the oldest and best known
principles of criminal Jurisprudence princi-
pies, which II cannot be supposed ANY Legisla-
tute OF virginia would disregard eff npon
sudden quarrel ,(says Blackstone, vol 4 p. 1871 }
two persons fight, and one kills the other, this
rs manslaughter: so il is, if on sudden occa-
sion they 20 out and fight in field, for this is
one continued act OF passion, and the law pays
That regard TO human tralty, as not to nut a
nasty and deliberate act upon the same foot
~
husane and rational. than il is legal if the fytt
had taken place between Jones G reen and john
STROLLER, at the time, and under the circum-
stances which existed, either with pistols or
dirk,, as proposed, and StrOther had been kill
led, Green could surely not have bee convict
ed OF murder. Ii this supposed killing would
not have constituted murder, il could moi have
come within the operation of the " act to sup
presA duelling." And IT the case would not
have come within the operation of that " act Z"
had the fight takeH place. aud death ensut 4
certainly ii cannot be within its operation
when the proposition to fight was only accept
ed, without ANY fight having taken place
But when the humane interference Of the
gentlemen present prevented the termination
OF the dispute between Sir0ther and Green.
with dirks Oh the spot, they signed an agree
ment in tue following words: I'VE the under
signed, will meet at Port Tobacco, i'm the state
OF Maryland, on the 9TH of Jane next and ad-
just our differences, either amicably or hostile
ly." Before the day of meetlnS the affair
was made up between the parties and thus n
terminated. Does, then, the signing of this
agreement constitute the acceptance of
challenge on the part ct Jones Green in con-
tIaveniiOn of the Act 10 suppress dueIIing ,"
Your comtsiltee confess that tiIey meet with
some difficulty at this point of their enquiry
nut they VIII proceed Succinctly 10 state their
views on the subject. Ii is verv evident Thar
it the word 0micdbly had been omitted in this
agreement, the challenge and the acceptance
OF VI mast have been complete, as soon as the
parties signed their names TO it,. But the ill.,
deduction OF this weird mate rally Changes the
nature OF the agreement. Ii mightlave turn.
ell out TO he challenge and acceptance q r II
might not, according To future circumstances
II the parties had fought under this agree
ment, the duel would have been complete
and II death had ensued, tile crime of murder
wonld have been committed This word how
ever. must have been introduced for he mr.
pose OF avoiding that last resort and il did
prevent IT. The agreement was in effect,
that 1t they could not adjust their differences
amit ably, they would fight but they did SET.
Tie their differences amicably, and therefore
the other alternative heveI happened 4 cia;-
lenge IN order 10 be complete under The ems
tenn OF duelling, must be complete at the time
OF its being given; or il must be rendered so
by subsequent events. If il be conditional
wheni is given, il cannot become positive
until the condition takes place or fails or the
night actually happens. If A write to B. that
must either give him satisfaction aJnicdbLy
or meet him on certain day, to settle their
dispute hOStiLeiy, and answers that he will
either give him satisfaction amicabIy. or on
failing TO do so meet him at TIE appointed
Tine TO settle their disputes hostiIeIy' surely
should satisfaction be afforded amcably and
no meeting should take place neither wouId
have given, nor Il have accepted chal.
lenge. The previous condition would have
Deen fulfilled. and the alternative therefore
could not exist at all. Where is line difference
between this suppositIons case, and the Que
actually under consideration The committee
cannot perceive any. They believe that in
order TO constitute challenge within the
scope of the" Act 10 suppress dueIng," "a
statute highly penal, aud therefore to be con.
strned most strictly the demand must be posi-
tive and unconditional in the first instance or
II must he rendered so by subsequent events.
HE demand was not positive when the agree
ment referred TO was signed, and posterior
events prevented its ever being so.
ReSoired therefore, as TIE opinion of this COM
mittee, That the case of Jones Green, the me-
morlnlist, does not come within The purview of
the " Act TO suppress duelling."
Tie other subject of enquiry referred 10
your committee, (naInely, whether The a.
TO suppress dneIling." so far as IL creates dis
| qualification TO member of the General As
| sembly, which is not specified in the consIitu-
Ilom, nor prescribrd hY any law in fnrre AZ III, q