New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1878-06-05
THE IsENNETT-MAY DUEL.

THE BENNETT-NIAY DUEL.
1T Breaks Out in a NeaC Spot.
New York Times.
MY attention has been called to an article
in the New York Z zines of the 18th inst,
which has been copied by most of the daily
papers of this city, purporting to give by:
San eyewitness ssthe true story of the
affair which occurred one year and half ago
between Messrs. May and Bennett. This
''true story, now for the first time made pub
lic,' although at this late day, bears no sigma
ture, but is the production of a volunteer,
one Mr.. George Wilkes, who says he received
it from DR.. Phelps, who, we are told, sswas
present and ssacted as surgeon for both
parties I have parposely waited some
days, thinking it probable DR.. Phelps might
deny having made this statement, but by his
silence conclude he sanctions it. l shall
therefore speak of it as it deserves.
The object of this article (appearing at
this time) is apparent, and have no hesita-
ton at the start in declaring, in the most
unqualified terms, that it is absolutely and
maliciously false; and further, of adding
that if DIR. Phelps did give such version to
Mr.. George Wilkes, and, to fortify it, told
him "that he was present, that is, of course,
on the ground,) and in the capacity of
surgeon to both parties, y then in that case
he knew he was making false statement
when he did so. Very soon after the affair
alluded to took place it was thought inadvis-
able on account of the misrepresen
tations that were almost daily
circulated by sympathizing press, ignorant
of the aggravating facts that led to the diff
Guilty, to have correct account of what did
occur sent on from Baltimore, from the only
authority that is ever recognized among
gentlemen in such cases, and that as the Of
fetal friend or friends of one OF both of the
parties. This was accordingly done, and
that statement drawn up in full, and
signed by Mr.. Mays second (Alr. Robbins
being in Europe), was for several months
freely circulated at different clubs in this
city, no one daring then, OF since, to ques
ton its accuracy. For many and obvious
reasons it was not published in the city
papers.
Now, without at this time deeming it nee
essary to enter into further particulars, I de-
sire to say that any gentleman of the hun
dreds who have read this statement will
be able to judge if have been either hasty
or harsh, in branding as do, the article in
the Times with falsehood. There is an evil
dent effort in this article to create the i'm
preston, not openly but indirectly, that Mr..
Bennett was not fairly dealt with as to
weapons, for after infinitely describing those
of both parties, we are given to understand
that Mr.. Bennett had one of Mr.. Nays given
to HIM which was every hard on the trigger
so dreadfully hard it could not be fired in
the time allowed by the terms of the fight.
But will give his own words: 'sAlmost
instantly upon the word Mr.. May fired.
'One, two, three followed, and Mr.. Bennett,
who pulled at his trigger, and evidently with
the best will in the world, did not succeed
in getting his weapon off. The ineffective
pistol exhausted the zone, two, three by it's,
reluctance, and dropped harmless by his
slde." But he gives us further to under
stand, as Mr.. Bennett had been fired at, ga
return shot, was claimed for him, which
claim being, as he says, according to rule,
was Of course allowed and MI. May stood
up unarmed, or as he expresses it, sstook his
place empty handed before Mr.. Benefits
pistol And then it seems the difficulty as
to the 'inefective pistols vanished; the.shard
trigger" yielded, it would fire, and it was
''fred in the air.
Now the first part of the paragraph is
false. Mr.. May did not fire at ali, for his
pistol missed fire, or snapped It is true ga
return fire. was claimed, and by great
mistake, was acceded to by the second of
Mr.. May, who was inexperienced in such
matters, and who, though having strong
doubt as to any such, right, nevertheless
yielded it in spirit of chivalric magnanim-
ity, and told his principal to stand up un-
armed-which he did, to receive this claimed
shot. And every one knows, as Mr.. Bennett
knew, that If under these circumstances, he
had fred at and killed his adversary, even
by the "barbarous practice of duelling,'' as it
has been recognized in this country, he
would have forever borne another mark than
that which his friend DR.. Phelps states che
wears to this day and will carry to his grave
and that would have been 'sthe mark of
Cain.''
I will only add that should not have con
sidered this article in the Times entitled to
any notice, if it did not profess to be de-
rived from one who, it is asserted, sswas
present, = San eye Witness and "acting as
surgeon to both parties,'' and to prove
which the most minute circumstances are
detailed, even as to the appearance Of the
''fatal disk of the avenging weapon, as the
merciless word was given,' and even as to
the look of the eye of Mr.. Bennett, ssas it
bore straight across the angry wound which
his opponent had inflicted upon his face
few days before, while his arms were entan-
gled in his coat, &c. How can mans
arms get entangled in the coat which
he has on? But enough Of
such senseless trash. It is sufficient for me
to say. that DR.. Phelps twas not present. on
the ground; was not, therefore, ssan eve
witness on the ground; was not ssacting as
surgeon to both parties on the ground; and