The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-08-23


came down % Los Angeles and lad = oonveFsztoa with
Lieutenant ColOnd FH4D0Bt the SUBJECT u TIE duel
saying be forbade IL and had left order a. Monterey 70
hat eject Fremont soon followed 70 Monterey On ar
irving there Captain Tyler iBtimAte u AASons called
Lieutenant Colonel Fremont sid be did not come By
direction OF MasOn-thAt be had talked with him abOutt
thai Mason did not intend % insult him &c LeOtsaant
Colonel Fremont paid attention 70 this-went 70 Ma
sons quArters-Wss invited 70 st downdid not-said be
came 10 let Mason see be was there-and walked out"
Colonel Fremont soon AFTER on the 4th Of Nay ls47 re
esyed orders from General KeaTney, directing him to
proceed no furtbe- in this matter
Commodore Biddls, Of the navy demonstrated in wr-
ting with Colonel Mason the iuproprety, considering
the state Of public Affairs in California Of officers engaging
in duels wbereuPOn the latter enclosed copy Of his let
Ter, and proposed to postpone the meeting to
suitable occasion. Colonel Fremont replied
MONTEREY, May a. ls4I.
SR have the honor 70 acknowledge the receipt on
yesterday Of your Of the eh ns accompanied by
copy Of letter from Commodore Bddle to yourself The
further and indefinite pOstponement Of meeting If
such be your desire willing comply with il trust
ing that you win apPliEe me Of the earliest moment a
which the seting take place consistently with your
convenience aud sense Of propriety
- c. FREMONT.
ACol r B. Mason, Monterey"
This correspondents and the abOve-quoted statements
found in speech Of Col Benton delivered in a
session Of the Senate and reported by him the Appen
dir Of the Congressional Globe in s4 pages 1901 and
loO2.
The assumed OF offence clearly implies that Ere
nsuled Mason and it understood by the lat
ter while the former did not discaim the intention The
letters Of Fremont exhibit disposition take human
life only without any reasonable cause bat they display
persstency Of motive and purpose which indicate char
acteriscs of temper and disposition which IaWoving
and peaoeabe citizen approve This is the Of
single individual Of a party attempting to violate The
law but that Of the chosen leader and candidate Of par
~ for the highest office Which be elevated
In selecting him for the presidency, the @rePubcaL5
party implicitly approve Of his seeking the life Of fellow
for words spoken under the irritation Of supposed
personal and undisclained insult. Should this prece
dent be followed duels and murders would ELI the coun
Try with mourning and Can those who support
candidate whose impulses lead taking life for words
spoken by who had the right repe insOlence and
insult consistently reproach and denounoe whole party
for the Of individual? Is the desire take human
life less abhorrtnt than unauthorized blows
But this instance Of Frtmonts imperous e1actng and
Of the freedom Of senatorial debate were oonspeu-
land bin before the Senate Mr. Foo.e senator from
Mississippi made remarks which Fremont deemed derog
atory him. and be pronounced them false The follow
ing account Of the transaction given in prominent,
Newspaper al the time
Afterwards they met in the ante-chsuber when Pre-
mont struck FOote and brought blood They inme
diatey separated BY Senator Clarke. Subsequently Pre-
mont addressed Foote demanding q reracLon Of
the language used by him debate be signed in the
NJ and nfe he
refused Mr. Foots declined sign the paper bat sd
dressed note IN reply TO Fremont diselAiming any in
tenron Of giving personal offence 10 the language used
By him IN debate
The friends Of the parties deemed Mr. Foote's salts
factory, and card published declaring the
jusied It viii be that Fremont required apology
in writing which If givea, challenge which was LEFT
become effective II thus appears that Fremont
proposed if the words used were not retraese to call
the field with the view Of taking his life or
losing his Let this be eOnrAsed With the case Of
blows given for like cause II obedience 10 his demands
yielded bis intention 70 sacrifice human life
under circumstances which would render il murder-snd
that too for words spoken in debate and not intended 70
be personal Ought not this act Of Fremont close The
mouths Of his supporters in relation to the Brooks and
Sumner affair II they dsnOunoe the former, they
also deaounoe and condemn Fremont? Did not Ere
mont in the Of Mason ard Foots seek commit the
far greater crime and in the restraint Of the liberty
speech AAd the freedom Of debate?
But the parallel il should Be remembered
that the merely supporter Of the democratic party
while the other has been chosen by the repuboans'
the representative Of their principles with the hope Of
king him the Chief Magistrate Of the confederacy Do his
supporters approve bis practice in these cases and do they
expect to follow his precedent Do they wish them
prevail in community II elected, would Fremont
carry out biz Preoedsn in relation the freedom Of
speech and dsbas7 Do he and bis supporters approve
pistol rife remedy for whatever gives them offence
Are laws ample FOR the protection Of character
wen property DO they desire whose passions are
aroused take The their own banda and control
thsir fellOv-men with deadly weapons Do they wish to
commit the destnes Of country whose instincts
passion, mPel him seek the lives OF those who SPEAK
otherwise than respectfully Of him
WHO Is RESPONSIBLE