New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-12-20

Though We have not seen the fact stated in print
it has become matter of public nOtoriety that Mr.
Thomas Francis Mesgher lately challenged Mr.
Henry J. Raymond to fight duel on account OF
something published in the journal of which Mr.
Raymond il the responsible editor; and it il cred
IDLY reported that the challenged party, instead OF
handing his challenger over TO the authorities, nego-
tated with him, and finally retracted and explained
the offensive paragraph in a manner to satisfy the
demands of the duelist. AS the affair not only con-
Germs bish officer of the State, but the independ.
ence of the press, we deem it our duty to make it
subject of comment.
The Ofense in the case we believe to have been
the implication set forth more or less distinctly in
The N. Y Times, that Mr. Meagher broke his parole
when he escaped from Australia. This imputation
that gentleman himself the conductor of news.
paper regarded as an attack upon his honor which
he proposed to repair by fighting duel. Now
viewed as practical question, in the light of COM
mon sense, it is difficult to understand how the
reputation of Mr.. Meagher could be made good BY
such means. If any considerable portion Of the
public have adopted the opinion that he did substan-
italy violate his parole in making bis escape how
could his going out with Mr.. Raymond upon mu-
tual shooting or stabbng party tend to change that
opinion and render il more favorable to him. On
the other hand, he had his Owl journal in which to
defend himself in reasonable way; and the legal
remedy provided for cases of Libel would have been
perfectly efficacious. If instead of sending cartel
to Mr.. Raymond, he had resorted to the newspapers
or brought the matter before court Of law, he
might have had an opportunity Of proving what 10
The real truth respecting his alleged violation Of bis
parole and bringing public opinion over to his side.
How far the attempt to decide the question oy the
bloody absurdity of duel is likely to nave tnat re-
suit, may be question.
Mr.. Meaghers undertaking thus TO SUBJECT the
press to the law of cbvalrous ruianism appears to
u.s. however, much more venial than Mr.. RaymOnd's
virtual though partial submission to that tribunal.
As high officer of the State it was his duty to give
full effect to her laws and to send the challenge to
the District-AttOrney; as an eminent journalist it
was still more his duty to assert the independence
of the press, and to repel with energy and effect
the peculiar responsibility thus sought to be en-
forced upon him. The journalist who deals with
challenger in any other way than be would with
q rufian or lunatic is guilty of un faithfulness
to bis high calling and in fact does an injury to the
public in general. We must add, however, that
we have no doubt that in taking this course Mr. Ray
mond was actuated by humane willingness TO
spare bis antagonist the modification and ridicule
Of that public exposure to which he had voluntarily
subjected himself. In the case of merely private
gentleman, such mode of disposing Of challenge
might receive the praise of great forbearance and
kindness; but leading member of the press ought
to have treated such an impertinence in very diff
ferent manner.