The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-07-15

sbis. whether B was horse. thief or not |:
and If B had killed A tho world would
not know, from ths., whether A had
falaely or truly accused B. Tho conflict,
therefore, does NOT settle any controversy,
or give TO either antagonist any moral
advantage before the community.
One other claim Is made for the Code,
which Is that it shows those who act up
to its requirements ia t;.a duel to be
brave mep, and under this snpposition
hundreds Of men have fought who, un-
der circumstances requiring courageous
action, would have b. m arrant towards.
In timea of peace men have fought duels
who would not In time Of war 90 upon
the field OF battle in defense OF their
country. Ettn men who are known and
recognized as arant towards sometimes
fight duel. H. IA true that brave men
Sight duels sometimes, but it Is also true
chat cowar,ls dp the same, and therefore
there 10 no test OF courage in the practice.
1t Ia without justification, either In the
eyes c. Cad or Of right thinking men,
and shnuld not be tolerated.
We do not care TO comment upon the
recent duel in detail. The fact that a
strong public indignation Is felt through.
out the State Mt its occurrence, and that
there is potent demand 70: the prose
cution Of the men whose passion and
Tecklessness has cfl,sed this murder
Ia gratifying, and shows that proper
sentiment is entertained by our people
upon. this important question. If the
law permits men in Col. Cash's position
to take the life of O citizen under the
guise Of a duel, then the Code is restored
In South Carolina, and all laws against this
form of murder had as we'll be repealed
There should be prompt, efficient and
Incorporating prosecution of Col. Cash
for murder, in order that 1t may be de.
cided ouce and forever that men cannot
In South Carolina take the life Of fel.
low-citizen, even though challenged by
that citizen to do 80. At The same time
both seconds should equally be prosecuted
under tho law ofthis State against duel
ling. They are equally as guilty before
the law ~ Col. Cash, for they were pres
aut aiding and abetting in the tragedy
but morally they ere not apparently 30
guilty, for it was not OF their procure.
nient that the duel wa fought, and
hence we think o conviction and impris.
onment in their cases would be sufficient
in this instance, though evory second in
future should be treated under tho law
"a o principal.
As this will be the FIRST case of prose.
cutioa in South Carolina, of which We
know, we do not agree with those Of our
contemporaries who call for the indict-
ment of the friends who were present.
1t will be enough for this case TO indict
Col. Cash for murder, and 10th seconds
for assisting 10 the duel. It will vindi-
cate the law and establish the proper
moral tone throughout the State. If
there should be recurrence of the crime,
then every ono Present, as second or
friend, should be vigorously prosecuted
and punished 10 the fullest extent of tho
law. SO far. however, Us the surviving
principal and the seconds are concerned,
there should be no temporizing or sym.
pathy even, in this case. They have de-
liberately taken or assisted in taking the
life of q worthy gentleman, ana now the
law alionld speedily visit the punishment
which justice demands upon them.
They have already had immunity 10
lo2g. The officers Of the law ahould atI
tend to their duties and proceed prompt
TO enforce the penalty of their crimes
against tiese gentlemet.,@ Their oGepss
Is too great against society to ,bs, even
temporarily conduned. .p-