The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-07-12
d u E L L IN G.
On pages PA and 235 ofthe Revised Statutes of
this State, will be found the following section:

On pages 234 and 235 Of the Revised Statutes of
this State, will be found the following section:
",SEc. XIV. That if any person
shall engage in or fight a duel with ~
mother, or shall be second to such per-
son who shall fight a duel; or if
any person shall, by word, message, 1T
ter, or in any other way, chalIeAge
another to fight duel; or shall ac-
accept challenge to fight duel, al
though no duel be fought; or shall,
knowingly, be the bearer of such chal-
lenge; or shall advise, prompt, or en-
courage or persuade any person to fight
a duel, or challenge another to fight a
duel, whether such duel be fought or
not; every person SO offending shall be
deemed guilty of "a misdemeanor, and
upon conviction thereof, shall be i'm
prisoned in the penitentiary, and kept
at hard labor, not more than ten years,
nor less than one year; and shall fore v
er after be incapable of holding any
Office of honor, profit or trust, within
this state: provided, however, if death
ensue from such duel, the person or per-
sonsconcerned, shall be deemed guilty
Of murder, & shall be punished for MUIR
der in the first or second degree, (as the
case may be) as is provided in this act; !;
anything in this section to the contrary
Notwithstanding"
Section SO of the same act provides that the aid
and abettors shall be punished in the same man.
ner as the principal offenders; and if the principal
would be punished with death, SO would the alder
and abettor.
History tells us that Henry Clay accepted chal-
lenge from Col. Daviess; this /, ONE Infringement
ofthe law, which if committed in our state would
be punished with Imprisonment in the pententiary.
Mr.. Claychaiienged Mr.. Marshall of Kentucky
for words spoken in debate; and twice or thrice
deliberately Mot at Mr.. Marshall; this is SEC
OND offence. which if committed in our State
would subject the offender to imprisonmentin the
penitentiary.
Mr.. Clay challenged John Randolph; and twice
deliberately fired al him Thsisa THIRD offence,
with the same punshme as the Others.
Mr.. Clay. himself, says that he "sketched a
draugh in his o,oa handwriting )" which Graves
copied and semitic Cilley. being the challenge to
fight a duel. Again Clay says:-"Being the
FRIEND OF Mr.. Graves, could not inuoke the
authority of the police 10 prevent the duel" A
gain he says:-"I admit without any reservation
whatever, that on all points Of controversy respect
ing which he (Graves) asked my opinion, < aue it
to him freely according to the best ofmyjudgment"
This duel resulted in the death of Mr. Cilley; this
we think is FOURTH offence under our law
Mr.. Graves according 10 our laws, would have
been HUNG for murder. Our law provides the
same punishment for those who "adpise, prompt,
encourage or p,Usuade" any person to fight duel,
as the principal. If Graves then would have been
punished by our laws with death, what would now
be the fate of Henry Clay! Would he not, if the
crime had been committed within the borders of
our Stae nowb be sleeping in the murderer's grave,
having expiated his offence on the gallops7
This is the man, citizens Of Monroe, whose
claims arc urged by the whig party for the presi-
dency. Are you willing to support him! We
think not.