The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-10-19


go astray we cannot undertake to say. 1t
may appear absurd, at FIRST sight, to assert
that duelling has anything TO do with it; but
If it be true that this much-condemned prac-
tice has produced a ohivarous feeling of
honor in the French, il ia not unreason-
able to suppose that il may influence
them in their public as we'll rs in their private
conduct. In strong confirmation Of our views
we may adduce the fact that duelling has
recently increased to an unusual extent in
Italy. The bitterness of political strife in
that country the prominence which the
army holds there, and the license of the press
seem to have been active causes of making
the duel more than ever the recognized mode
of resenting injuries and insults. There has
lately appeared pamphlet on the subject
from the pen of Signor Fambri, Venetian
Journalist and politician, in which the neces-
sity of duelling is deplored, but insisted on Us
the only counterpuise to the evils of free
press in the authors native land.
Various estimates have been made as to
the number Of persons killed IN duels. We
are inclined to think it has been greatly over
rated We read that during the reign of
Henry ~ of France, four thousand gentlemen
lost their lives in that country by duelling;
and that during the reigns of Louis XIII and
Louis XIV scarcely a day passed without
several fatal duels in Paris alone. A little
reflection will convince us that there must
be considerable exaggeration in these
statements. At the rate of even two hun
dred deaths year, the French Court
would speedily have been deprived Of
every gentleman in il, which we know
has never been the case. The number of
duels fought in England during the reign of
George III, period Of sixty years, was only
a hundred and seventy-two, and but sixty
nine persons were killed This comes more
within the pale of belief. We believe the
DF
very moderate In the State of Pennsylva-
MIA there has been no duel fought since the
bloodless one between Mr.. Binns and Mr.
Stewart III 1905, which occasioned the passing
of an act of the Legislature inhicting severe
penalties on all who should engage in duel
ling; and since that time, though several Penn
sylvanians have fought duels, they have gone
out of the State to do it Much of the
invective against duelling as causing a
wanton destruction Of life, falls to the
ground. Many duels have been merely pub
lie modes of apulogizing for insult or injury;
and in a very large number of these cases
reparation was obtained from bullies which
could have been Cbtained in no other way.
Let us not be misunderstood. We do not ad-
mire dueling any more than we do war, or
! pestilence, OF suy other OF the evils which
atiict the human race, but which, neverthe-
| less, have been permitted to sCOurge US from
time to time, doubtless for wise ends
But we believe that where duelling has
been abandoned, and the community has
not pTopOrtionaily progressed in enlight-
eminent, the practice has been succeeded
either by less regard for the feelings
of others, eyinced in coarse manners
and insulting language, OF by q greater
amount of litigation, or by resort to violent
and unfair means--eyen assassination for
the qualification of personal revenge. The
celebrated Charles Cotesworth Pincl1ney of
South Carolina, who was q brave and distin-
guished soldier, labored hard to abolish duel
ling, and induced number of leading men of
that Statesto memorialze its Legislature for
stringent laws against the custom. The me-
mortal embodied. in as concise and energetic
form as the English language permits,
all the arguments which could be ad-
vanced against it; and no Christian could
well refuse his assent to them.
Still as Christians though they condemn
war will embark in it-ay. and carry it on
with savage energy too-so will they occa-
sionally resort to duelling until better tone
of society and more thorough appreciation
of the precepts Of the Gospel shall render
both unnecessary. We know of no better
and nobler stand against duelling than that
taken by the Hon. Robert Barnwell Rhett,
Senator from South Carolina, in the personal
controversy which arose in the Senate between
him and the Hon. Jeremiah Clemens, Senator
from Alabama, i'll February, 1862. Mr.
Clemens had used the terms 'gknavery' and
treason" in reference to Mr.. Rhett, which
was sufficient proyocation for fifty duels, but
he subsequently added the term coward" "
Ninety-nine Americans out of hundred would
in such case haTe considered themselves bound
to resort to ''tbe code of honor; not so Mr..
Rhett. He boldly stood up in the Senate and
said, For twenty years 1 have been mem
ber of the Church of Christ. The Senator
knows it--eVeryhody knows it. cannot and
will not dishonor my religious profession. If
| he, or any one else, suppOses that am SO
much afraid OF his insults, or the opinion
which requires them TO be redressed in the
! field, as to be driven by them TO abandon the
profession Of twenty years, he is entirely mis-
taken. / frankly admit that fear God, and
! that I fear Him more than man. Although
desirous of the good opinion of all men
! (for our usefulness is very largely de-
! pendent on the good opinion OF our fellows,
we can never obtain it by an abandonment
| of the principles we profess. True courage is
| best eYinced by the firm maintenance of our
! principles amidst all temptations and trials.
! This was truly noble example to set, and
has probably not been without its influence;
! although many iamentable affairs have since
occurred, wherein The party injured, or sup
! posing himself 20 be injured took upon HIM
| self to redress his own grievances, and public
! opinion sustained linn in so doing. We are
not now speaking of those savage encounters
which have occurred on the borders of
civilization, where, in fact, no other mode of
| redress was to be mad than that afforded by
the rough-and-roady hand of the settler but
Of those scenes enacted in the very heart Of