The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1874-02-03

is that which accepts the designation OF
the duel as . code OF honor. Il is no
such thing. II is code OF personal
hatred, revenge npd murder. It is an
agency by which men who have grudge
against eaoh other on account Of some
private pique or wrong, real or ina.
gined, or whose personal interests clash,
may, under one pretexs or another,
commit the crime. at least in intention
OF Gain. without mourning the penalties,
which other murderers have to face, OF
the gallows. Another sophism is that
which represents the duel as test Of
| courage. If such men as Mordecai aud
MeUarty, both brave Confederate SOL
| diers, had not proved their courage in
the face OF cannon and musketry on 100
battle fields, it is difficult to see how it
could be- demonstrated by IN inter-
change of pistol shots. It is to be hoped
that the custom OF ''involuntary man-
slaughter" will bo put an cnd to by on
lightened public sentiment. Apart from
its immortality and inhnmsnity, it can
not fail to rstsrd emigration from other
sections and countries to the State.
Men raised in regions where the duel is
simply looked upon rs one form of muir
der, are reluctant to make their abodes
for life whore they must either comply
with it's requirements. and thereby vio-
late their consciences, or be put under q
social ban and degradation. At any
rate, if the legislation of any of the
States on this subject is to be dead
letter. it would be more in keeping with
candor and manlinhss to wipe it off the
statute book altogether, so that the real
law OF the land may be understood by
all it's people and "the rest of mankind" I"
and that when men go out and delibo-
rately shoot each other down in duels,
it may not be necessary for Jury to
pronounce it ''involuntary manslaugh-
ter; -Bahimore San.
The JUDICIAL CONFLICT. follow
ing is the concluding portion of the OPT
MON of Judge Mackey, delivered in the
matter OF Leroy F. Youmaus, Esq,
who had been suspended from practlc.
ing in any Of the Circuit and Probute
Courts of the State, under tho decrctal
order of his Honor r. B. Carpenter,
Judge of the Fifth Circuit. The order
in question was made January II, 1874,
and On appeal therefrom is now pending
in the Supreme Court. The issue arose
before Judge Mackey on calling the
case Of the State cs. Hezekiah T.. Dun-
can. charged with murder, in the Court
of General Sessiona of Fairfield County,
at the recent term-Mr. Youmans being
Of counsel for the prisoner.
Colonel J. 81. Rion announced to the
Court that his associate, Mr.. Yuumans,
waH embraced in tho order of suspension
referred to. but that Judge Carpenter
had stated that he would modify the
order 80 far rs to pormit Mr.. IOumuus
to appear in that case.
Judge Mackey observed, that he, as
presiding Judge, would not exercise any
OF his prerogatives permissively, espe.
cially when the assumed power to per-
init might, if recognized as binding
through the comity that should regulate
the relations of courts, be extended SO
far as to paralyze tho court itself, by
placing oil it's counsellora under inter
dict and booming them to perpetual
silence. He also stated that he regarded
the 'permission" itself as offensive; for
it implied that, while the counsellor in
question was deemed unworthy to prac-
tice in the courts Of the Fifth Circuit,
he might very properly appear in the
courts OF tho Sixth Circuit. Judge
Mackey's opinion in the case is said to
have been very elaborate, and when
copied from the stenographer's notes,
will cover some sixty written pages.
The order of my learned brother,
the Judge of the Fifth Circuit, invades
the jurisdiction Of the presiding Judge
OF this court, by assu ming to silence one
OF its officers. counsellor of the courts
of law Of the State, and prohibiting
him from appearing and pleading in
any Of the Circuit or Probate Courts.
1t also indirectly assaults tho jurisdiction
Of the District Court of the United
States, as it in effect requires the dis
missaI of proceedings in IL cause therein
pending as coudi-precedent for the
revocation Of the said order OF suspen-
sion. Iu this the said order is yiolativc
OF the Constitution and laws Of the
United States, as exponnded by the Su-
preme Court of the United States in
cases hereinbefore cited, and, therefore.
ought not to be obeyed. Vide, also,
Hines & Hobbs vs. Rawson, 40 Georgia
Supreme Court Reports.
'For each and all of the reasons, emu.