National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1873-10-23

he gave OF transmitted tho order for the |
burning Of the capital of his State, on the Sd |
day Of April, 1895 Somebody gave the or.
der. The Confederate soldiers did not burn
that capital without orders, and Gen. KEN
per either originated the order or transmitted
II from his chief TO his subordnates pro.
viously to bis flight TO Farmvilc, where the
Hon. Evtra-B. Smith lont him that famous hnn.
drcd dollars In Confederate notes, Of which
tho public has heard.
Per contra, the Conservatives bring a
charge against the Republican chief II Ia
that, In trying and falling to settle quarrel
between friend OF his and man In Ten
nessce In 1870. he became implicated In
challenge to what was no duel at oil. II Is
difficult to treat such charge as this with /
gravity, and tho lateness Of time at which II |
Is brought ont argues that 1t IL only relied |
upon as partisan trick. Mnrryatt, In his |
Peter Simple" alludcs TO thing which he |
calls flap iooile-thc food on which fools are |
fed And we can find no better name for |
this Tennessee charge, so lately produced |
against Colonel Hughes, than 1apdoodle-a
thing intended for the deception NJ fools |
only.
The matter charged lacks substance TO |
|
work q Acknowledgement in every respect. |
There was no duel; there was no challenge;
there was none borne by Colonel Hughes;
aud whatever was done by him In the matter,
"hich was very 'lt',''"ns uone IN tennessee
and not IN Virginia. IL Is confessed there
was NOT only no uuei' ou' that thcrc was the
most riuiCulous "oschee OIL one
| Is no, SHOWN mat 'hcre was chaIengc
| 10 uuc' WIN uc"uly "cePonS' ana, IN
iact' therc was none. inc law mas techni-
ea iuea oi enaiienge IN using mat word A
ehauenec Is dehaht demand or dare, or
call 10 hsht uuc, WIN ueauiy weapons NO
such demand, or dare, or chaiienge appears
in the correspondence which has been pub
isheu' ihere was request Tor q meeting,
and II may he supposed that at the meeting
requested, II II mad occurred, challenge
would have passed and deadly weapons de-
termlncd upon; but II 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 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 duel
with deadly weapons" borne by Col. Hughes.
1t docs not appear, even, that Col Hughes
nau "nS '"i"s W wv "n' a"y VI .he i'ehn'
. nary notes. 1t Is not pretended that he bore
any Of them unless II be that he bore the one
requesting Inc meeting. "he'her lie bore
that mote or not cNil request tEat there
should be meeting Of parties cannot be con-
sirued In law 10 have been a challenge to
/ tight duel with deadly weapons. Aaease
atty of any sort this one Is the flimsiest case
that could be ima gined. No Jury would hang
dog upon such evidence.
No law Of Virginia can lie construed to
. make any act committed outside Of the Com
monweaith criminal in the Commonwealth,
unless II Is so expressly enacted The State
constitution does expressly enact that the
sending or accepting challenge to fight
duel with deadly weapons BY a principal shall
| ho ort,,t,oi T., ,,o o.. ,l1,,,., u