New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1852-10-06


VOLUME v.
they may deem best calculated to suppress the
practice of duelling in this State.
Mr. CAsTELLANos-T wish to set myself right
before the Convention in relation to my vote on
Article 130 of the Constitution. l think that
the course of gentlemen in this Convention ought
to be consistent with the duties actually imposed
upon them as members of this Convention. |
take the ground that we must not assume duties
which we are not authorized to perform in the
work of framing a Constitution. l take the
ground that the Legislature has the right to in
fict punishment for offences, and ask if the
provision in Article 130 is not punishment for
the offence of duclling' | think that gentlemen
will admit that what properly belongs to the
Legislature ought to be left to the Legislature.
But take the further ground, that this law
does not operate equally on all our citizens. 1t
enforces its penalties upon some citizens who
may be placed in positions to incur them, while
it exempts other citizens who may be guilty of
the very same act or offence. 1t is unjust, be-
cause it disfranchises and dcprives OF certain
rights the citizen who shall fight duel, or aid,
in any manner, in q duel with citizen of this
State, while the citizen who fights duel, or as
slsts in one, with a person who IS not citizen
of this State, although he commits the very same
offence, does not come within the scope of this
Article, and is not liable to punishment.
Why this distinctions Is not the offence the
same in the one case as in the other? If fight
ing duel makes man an offender, it surely
ought to make offenders of all men who partic-
pate in the practice.
But consider that this is a subject which it
is the duty of the Legislature to discuss The
Legislature can properly shape the punishment
for this offence, so that equal justice shall be
done to every citizen. / hold that the Article
1870 of the Constitution is an injustice to the
citizen. 1t conflicts with the spirit of our Gov
ernment, and with the Constitution of the United
States, which clearly guards and defines the
right and position of the citizen at the polls.
ask every gentleman in this house, if it is not
degrading that citizen, when he goes to vote,
should be obliged to incriminate himself or, if
he refuses to take the oath, that he should sub
jject himself to doubt of having comm tied an
offence punishable by the laws of the State. I
will take the case of man who has fought q
duel He is asked at the polls if he has ever
fought duel or assisted in a duel, with cit-
zen Of this State. ] submit whether this is not
in opposition to Article 10 of our Constitution,
which says that every free white male who has
attained q certain age, is a citizen of the United
States, and shall have resided a given length of
time within this State, shall be entitled to vote.
Article 10 contains all the qualifications to en-
in that Article, when the questions of citizen
ship and residence are satisfied.
l contend that man has right to present
himself at the polls, and assert his privilege as
voter, without being subjected to the inquiry if
he has committed an offence of this nature.
That is a right inchoate with our Government
itself, and grave indeed must be the crime for
which the citizen is deprived of it.
l am not here advocating the practice OF
duelng. l am opposed to that practice. But
| ask why the penalties of this Constitution are
not applied to those offences which are daily
committed on our streets: Why are its most
marked and severe penalties reserved for a Sc
condary otfence' Our Constitution ought to be
comprehensive and stringent in its provisions to
prevent murders, punish street fights, suppress
telones and the like; but, by this Article 1870,
you deprive the man who has fought a duel OF
the privilege which You i've to the felon The
telon is not disfranchised-he may hold Office
he is not placed under the ban Of the Constitl1-
ton. l wish to fasten attention to this odious
distinction, which places the felon above the
duelist.
| refrain here from entering into any argu-
ment on the subject of duelling But believe
that, SO long as man is man. dueling shall be
practced, whatever may be the penalties i'm
posed. 1t is needless for me to illustrate by ex.
ample, that men will fight ducls without looking
to the sacrifice. Such examples have come un.
der the observation of all Of u.s. But if duelline
is to be punished as an offence, why should we
take from the Legislature that which properly
belongs to the Legislature, the right to pre-
scribe the punishment?
We have, in this Convention, resolved to take
from Constitution all of its restrictive fea
lures. | have listened to the beautiful language
of gentlemen while they were maintaining that
no restrictions should he placed upon the quail
iications of voters. Do they now intend to re-
cede from that noble ground Do they intend
to recede so far as to favor restriction so pal
pably unjust and offensive to the rights of the
citizen
Another principle has been asserted and ac-
quiesced in by this Convention. 1t is to take
from the Constitution every thing Legislative in
its character, keeping in view that we came
here for the sole purpose of framing the organic
law. ! now call upon gentlemen to adhere te
that principle.
agree with all those gentlemen in this house
who think that dueling ought to be suppressed
as far as it is possible to suppress the practice
The only difference of opinion in this Convention
is as to the mode. Let us then leave to the
Legislature to consider what that mode shall
be. But do not let us, while we are boasting Of
stripping our Constitution of all restrictions, al
low this Article 130 to remain in the Constitu-
ton If consistency has any place in this Con-
vention, | call upon gentlemen to take from our
CONSTITUTION llaI OulOuS-tnaU DaIDaFOuS re-
| striction.
l am opposed to Article 1870:
list. Because it is odious in its intention, scope
and influence.
! I'd. Because it makes unjust distinctions be-
tween citizens of this State and citizens of other
| States, in punishment for the same offence.
might fight duel with citizen of Mississippi
or with q European, and incur no penalty
whereas my offence would be identcally the
same as that which might subject me to the de-
privations prescribed in Article 1870.
Sd. Because this Constitutional provision has
failed to suppress the practice of dueling.
4th Because it is an unjust restriction
9Th, Because it is Legislative
One remark more. Why has it been found
that the Constitutional Article 130 has done
nothing to put down the practice of dueling
| attribute it to this-that the Constitution o
the State has put the duelist and the murderer
on the same footing. The Constitutional provi
| sions against dueling are repugnant to reasor
and common sense, and openly at war with the
well matured opinions of society. Therefore, NJ
punishment for the offence Of dueling can evel
be awarded. Can gentlemen cite one instance
of man having been found guilty of murder
where his antagonist had fallen in duel No
All the eloquence of the best Attorney Genera
that this State ever had, could not bring suck
verdict. 1t will be we'll, therefore, for thi
Convention to leave the subject of this Article
to the Legislature, which body will, no doubt
adopt the most salutary operative law to pu
down the practice.
Mr.. JENN1NGs-I am opposed to the gentle