The Rutland weekly globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-07-11
THE DUELLO.

it was presumed, that there would be a
providential interference between the
right and wrong. This wager of battle
differed from its oif-spring-the duel--in
that an aggrieved person. no-p.atter bow
bitterly he had been wronged, could not
avenge himself upon his own motion.
The forms and ceremonies preceding the con-
flict, were of the most imposing and solemn
nature, and the final appeal was resorted
to, only after request had been preferred
to, and granted by, the courts, that the
truth might be determined in mortal COM
bat. Each party made oath to the truth
and justice of his cause and the whole
theory and foundation of the proceeding
was that each was fighting for truth and
| justice, and that God would determine the
right. This CUSTOM recognized as a right
over thirteen hundred years ago, and hay
ing origin we know not in how remote an
antiquity, has remained as such almost to
our own day. So late as 1774, when "A bill
was under consideration in the British par
Lament, relating to the administration of
| justice" in Massachusetts, clause was con-
tanned abrogating the duel in cases of
murder, but upon the objection of Burke
and others that it was violation of the
constitution and the rights of British sub
! jccts, the clause was stricken out, and the
'wager of battle" became a part Of Amer
lean jurisprudence In 1915 Ellenborough
and the other judges of the highest court of
England, in case judicially be-
fore them. determined that an accused
person was entitled to be tried by the
'wagcr of battle" The effect of this de-
cision was to cause the abolition of the
judicial duel, by parliament, in the follow
ing year, and it has been, thenceforward
unknown save in history.
Following naturally from this came the
duel, as known at the present day, and
which, unfortunately, seems to be coming
into practice again. We are aware that it
is claimed by some that the duel preceded
the wager of battle, enforcing their argu-
ment or claim, by reference to the combat
| if we may so call it, between David and
Goliah as recorded in Holy Writ. 1t seems
| to us, however, that this Pnrtal<oS more of
the nature of the wager than The duel
although it was unattended by judicial sane
ton. All "combats between two are de-
fined to be duel, and if the mere definition
is to determine the matter, it would cover
the judicial as well as the private combats.
AS we understand duels, nearly all histo-
rians agree that they date from the cele-
brated cartel between Francis, the first of
that name, of France, and Charles ", En-
peror of Germany, in 1926 certain it is,
that the custom was thereafter more or less
sanctioned in "high places of church and
state, took place upon the slightest provo
cation, and constantly increased in number
Duels became, at last, so frequent and
alarming that repeated, but unavailing, eff
forts were made to suppress them. A his
torian says that "all France went mad
upon the duel" and the same was true
everywhere. The bulls of Popes, the pro-
clamations of rulers, and laws of paria-
ment were alike unheeded. And why ?
Because public opinion sanctioned the prac-
tice. The trouble was that if public man,
or even private individual, was wronged
or insulted-and the community so regard
ed it-he was required to choose between a
violation of divine and human laws, or the
loss of his position in society," and of all
hopes of recognition or advancement; in
either event he must, in measure, sacrifice
himself. The former course was chosen,
because the living victim would be sus-
tanned by public sentiment, vitiated to be
sure, but consoling and sustaining, after all.
Perhaps we, of New England, owe our
freedom from this terrible custom, to the
fact that an attempt was made to fight a
duel in the first year of the settlement, and
that the custom was rendered ridiculous by
placing the participants, tied together by
the neck and heels, in public place, OBJ
jects of contempt and ridicule for the null
titude.
This custom is, as we have said, again
becoming alarmingly frequent. Only yes
| VIC lNNOluCu llC ItSull VI u Nutl Ill
France, in which both parties were wound
ed, one seriously so. Within the space OF
a very few days we have, also, been called
upon to record three separate instances in
the United States, two of which resulted
fatally. The other combat took place very
near our own border, and was between two
prominent New York merchants. We
have referred to the history of duels ant
dueling for the purpose of showing, by
contrast, that whatever excuse there may
have been, heretofore, for the custom ant
practice, either in the law or public opinion
no such plea can now be urged. The day
when men could deliberately, and by agree
ment, settle their differences at the moutl
of the pistol has passed by, and cannot re
turn unless we, by our remissness, permit
The law and public sentiment class duelst
among the higher grades of criminals, ant
there they should remain. This matter i
brought home to our very doors, ,-whel
merchants from a neighboring city pas
through our village for the purpose of de
llberately murdeiing one or the other ant
no attention is paid thereto, here or else
where. Except in the case of the partie
to the Richmond affair, there seems to hay
been no attempt on the part of the authorl
ties to bring the parties to justice. Ii
, reference to all of these cases, there is al
apathy in the public mind, and on the par
of the press that is foreboding of danger
Shall these things be so, is question 70
us, one and all, to consider. The idea o
: an "affair of honor" between citizens o
Vermont would be no more strange thai
one between staid New York merchants
We do not believe that one ever will occu
in this State, neither did we believe, tw,