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

put lts marx on tne pfactlce of duellng, c1tl'
zens were constantly liable to annoyance by
lenge on every trifing occasion of offence, whe
her imaginary or real. This annoyance has
heHn abolished by the operation of this Consti-
tatnnai law. Some worthless individuals may
continue the practice, but gentlemen are alb.
snIFed from the necessity Of recognizing them by
the Code itself. No man of worth and charac-
ter VIII give up the privilege of being an Amer
lean citizen, that he may engage in duel un-
less the offence is great, and SO peculiar in its
character that all other means are unayailina
to wipe it out.
This very article in the Constitution of Louis.
lana has been the theme Of more praise through.
out our whole country and abroad, in the lead
ing periodicals, while discussing the beauties
and defects of Constitutions, as well as in the
halls of legislation and other public assemblies
than any other feature of our Government OF
social organization. In Texas, the State Con-
vention to remodel the Constitution met al
nearly the same time as ours, and incorporated
in the organic law of Texas nearly the precise
words of Article 100 of our Constitution Several
States, since that time, have adopted the same
provision in the organic law. In the State OF
Missouri they have shown how extremely anx-
ious they have been to destroy the practice -oi
dueing, on the ground that its worst effects
usually fall on the innocent wife and children
The law of Missouri makes the survivor provide
for the wife and children of the deceased. Here
is the law of Missouri
" 1t shall be the duty of the General Assem-
bly, provide by law for the mode and manner
in which the survivor of a duel and his estate
shall be rendered responsible to and be charged
with a compensation for the wife and children
Of the deceased
But, sir, although we have not gone so far as
this in our own State, we have gone far enough
to do us honor. We are entitled to respect, with
pride, a noble provision in our own Constitution
which has elicted much approval in other States
and been adopted in the re- structure of other
State Constitutions.
One of the most plausible objections to this
law is this: that citizen of this State, under
the operation Of the dueling law, may be insulted
at any time with impunity, whereas recourse is
open for satisfaction of insult to any one who is
not a citizen of this State. Although l do moi
attach much Importance to the objection mas
much as it is quite partial, betokens spirit oi
dissatisfaction, and is not such view of the
law as a good citizen ought to take, / had though
that the objection might be removed and witt
that view prepared the following substitute
which shall now simply read to the Conven
ton:
I" Any citizen Of this State or any person re
siding or sojourning therein who shall after thu
adoption of this Constitution fight duel will
deadly weapons, either within this State or ou
OF 1t, or who shall act as second, or knowingly
aid and assist in any manner, those thus offend
ing, shall be deprived of holding any office q
trust or profit and of enjoying the right of suf-
ffage under this Constitution acquired and tt
be acquired.
Another objection urged with some fore,
against this law is that it opens the door to as
saesinations and kindred crimes. All can sa,
IN answer to that objection is that when sucf
offences are committed, they will be properl,
visited by the law of the land, and as to thost
cases Of an aggravated nature which have otter
been referred to as demanding a retort to hostil,
weapons, believe that no jury will ever find
man guilty when he can prove that the offence
for which he sought violent redress was such as
could not have been wiped out by any Other
means.
But how far are we called upon to acknowl
edge the innocence of dueling? l take the cas-
of u man we'll skilled in the use of duellins
weapons who gives mortal offence to another man
| in the full knowledge that he to whom he is of
fering this outrage is all unskilled in the prac
| tices of dueling, as well as in the use of thos
weapons with which it is carried on The of
Tended party is compelled to send challenge
| to do SO or to bear the brand of "co,cayd
| are the alternatives presented-he has no Con
stitutional law to shield him from prcacll-h
challenges and the offender exultingly accepts
the latter Of course naming his choice of weap
ons, The parties go on the field. True to al
expectation, he who received the insult is TIN
victim. | ask if this is not as deliberate mur
der as can be committed
True, the man may avoid being murdered
he may reject the unequal terms of combat o.
he may decline to challenge; but, without this
constitutional law, he would be stigmatized a
a coward; and we know that a man, whethe
| he is coward at heart or not, will offer any
sacrifice before he will consent to bear that stig
ma. Mr.. President, mean it not irreverantl,
by introducing the sacred volume into this dis
| cusslon; but it seems to me that when Cali
having shed his brothers blood' was brande,
with the mark of divine indignation, and mad
a fugitive and vagabond on the earth, he wa
in condition in some respects assimilated t.
| the individual in our community who, befor
the adoption Of this Article in our Constitution
chose not, for whatever reasons, to send or accep
a challenge. Sir, he was pointed at arith TIL
finger of sc0ra,, slammed and despised by hi
Jei'o'c-men, with the stigma of society stampet
upon him, until he might well exclaim in til
pathetic language of the holy book, that for re
fus;ng to risk his own or another's life sshi
punishment was greater than he could bear
trust. sir, that the substitute may not pre-
vail, and now move to lay it on the table.
can never by my vote consent to expunge from
our Constitution one of its brigh est gems.
MIR. BuLLARD suggested that if Article 13t
were adopted by this Convention, there shoulc
be an amnesty for all past offences
NlR. HAYs-I am in favor of the adoption o
this clause as it now stands, and hope it vii
be cngrafted in the Constitution without an,
change whatever. All of us agree that tn,
practice of dueling is degrading and demoral
izing. There is not gentleman upon this floor
l presume, who does not feel upon this subjec
as feel, and who, could he see any effectua
means of suppressing the practice, would no
give the measure his hearty and cordial support
Nothing, sir, can be more desirable than legis
lation capable Of effecting such purpose bu
we have seen how utterly futile has been al
legislation to provide for its punishment. Ther,
is not single instance on record in the Who'll
country of a man having suffered the penalty
of the law for the offence of dueling This ha
been because the sound judgment of a jur,
invariably acknowledges that the punishmcn
| for dueling is too great, besides being, in al
important view, odious in this, that it places th
man who fights duel on the same footing witt
the felon and the murderer. Public opinion re
coils from such a classification OF men. Th
better elements of the human character conspir
and combine to reject it. Thus the law is
nullity, and it is the part Of wisdom to see
a remedy in Il law which may be rconciled wit
common sense and social prosperity by tn
measure of its soundness, its Justice and ii
moderation. To make laws efectual the penalt
for their infringement must be certain Whe
the punishment is certain, when it attaches b
| the mere operation Of the law itself, withou
the intervention and uncertainty of Judge O
jury, the law will be respected. Here, sir,
the benefit of this clause of the Constitution