The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1873-10-23
THE CAMPAIGN.


The canvass grows lively as election day
approaches. The Republicans have /,
heavy charge against the Conservativ,
leader-that he gave or transmitted tn,
order for the burning of the capital of his
state on the Sd day of April, 1865. Some.
body gave the order. The Confederate
soldiers did not burn the capital without
orders, and General Kemper either origi.
mated the order or transmitted it from his
chief to his subordinates previous to his
fight to Farmville, where the Hon.
Extra-B. Smith lent him that famous
hundred dollars in Confederate notes, of
which the public has heard.
Per contra, the Conservatives bring q
charge against the Republican chief. 1t is
that, in trying and failing to settle quarrel
between friend of his and man in Ten.
nessee in 1870, he became implicated in q
challenge to what was no duel at all. It is
difficult to treat such charge as this with
gravity, and the lateness of time at which
IT is brought out argues that it is only re.
lied upon as a partisan trick. Marryatt, in
his "Peter Simple" alludes to thing
which he calls tlapdoodle--the food on
which fools are fed. And we can find nc
better name for this Tennessee charge, SO
lately produced against Colonel Hughes
than hapdoodle-a thing intended for the
deception of fools only.
The matter charged lacks substance to
work disiranchisement in every respect.
There was no duel there was no challenge
there was none borne by Colonel Hughes !;
and whatever was done by him in the mat
ter, which was very little, was done in
Tennessee, and not in Virginia. 1t is con-
fessed there was not only no duel, but that
there was the most ridiculous absence Of
one.
aa 1t is not shown that there was q chal-
lenge "to duel with deadly weapons y
and, in fact, there was none. The law
has technical idea of challenge in using
that word. A challenge is defiant
demand, or dare, or call to fight duel
with deadly weapons. No such demand,
or dare, or challenge appears in
the correspondence which has been
published. There was a request for q
meeting, and it may be supposed that at
the meeting requested, if it had occurred,
challenge would have passed and deadly
weapons determined upon but it does not
appear that the meeting for the purpose Of
passing the challenge and settling upon the
weapons deadly or not deadly was ever
held. The meeting was declined, and no
opportunity given for a challenge or
for determining what weapons were
to be used. There was no duel,
no challenge to duel, no occasion for
deadly weapons, or weapons of any sort
: So there was no challenge to fight a
duel with deadly weapons borne by
Colonel Hughes. 1t does not appear,
even, that Colonel Hughes had anything
to do with any of the preliminary notes.
Ii is not pretended that he bore any of
them, unless it be that he bore the one
requesting the meeting. Whether he bore
that note or not, a civil request that there
should be a meeting of parties cannot be
construed in law to have been "a chal-
lenge to fight duel with deadly weapons.u
AS case of law to work disfranchise-
ment. or penalty of any sort, this one is
the fiimsiest case that could be imagined.
No jury would hang dog upon such
evidence.
No law of Virginia can be construed to
make any act committed outside of the
criminal IN the common
wealth, unless it is SO expressly enacted.
The state constitution does expressly enact
Lhat the sending or accepting challenge
to tight duel with deadly weapons by
shall be criminal in the state. |
'hough committed outside of the state
but it takes care not so to enact in the |
Ease of bearing challenge. And 50. the |
Bearing of "a challenge to fight duel
With deadly weapons" in another state il |
lot criminal act in Virginia. If the note |
'bove mentioned was challenge, (which it |
vas not j and it was borne by Colonel
hughes, (of which there is no evidence y
hll, 1T was borne, fat all, in Tennessee, |
md was not an offence under the laws of |
Virginia.
The court Of appeals has decided that d |
provision is not operative
until it is enforced by express
CT OF Assembly. This provision against
uellng in the state constitution was not
nioreed by act of Assembly until the Slst
I October, 1870, three months after these
in Tennessee occurred. No
ct Of Assembly can have criminal effect
yea post faeto operation. J
u ~ T-fElthu nNs ~ leNF