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

this, whether B was q horse.thief or not;
and if B had killed A the world would
not know, from that, whether A had
falsely or truly accused B. The 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 it's requirements in the duel to be
brave men, and under this supposition
hundreds of men have fought who, un-
der circumstances requiring courageous
action, would have been arrant towards.
In times of peace men have fought duels
who would not in time of war 60 upon
the field of oattle in defense of their
country. Evcn men who are known and
recognized as arrant towards sometimes
fight duel. 1t ia true that brave men
fight duels sometimes, but it is also true
that towards do the same, and therefore
there is no test of courage in the practice.
1t is without justification, either in the
eyes of Gnd or of right thinking men,
and should not be tolerated.
We do not care to comment upon the
recent duel in detail The fact that
strong public indignation is felt through
out the State ut its occurrence, and that
there is potent demand for the prose-
cution of the men whose passion and
recklessness has caused this murder
is 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 citizen under the
guise Of a duel, then the Code is restored
inSouth Carolina, and all laws against this
form of murder had as we'll be repealed.
There should be prompt, efficient and
uncompromising prosecution of Col. Cash
for murder, in order that it may be de-
cided once and forever that men cannot
in South Carolina take the life of fel-
low-citizen, even though challenged by
that citizen to do so. At the same time
both seconds should equally be prosecuted
under the law of this State against duel
ling. They are equally as guilty before
the law as Col. Cash, for they we're pres
ent aiding and abetting in the tragedy !;
but morally they are not apparently SO
guilty, for it was not of their procure
ment that the duel was fought, and
hence we think conviction and impris-
onment in their cases would be sufficient
in this instance, though every second in
future should be treated under the law
as principal.
As this will be the first case of prose-
cution 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 both seconds
for assisting in the duel. 1t will vindi-
cate the law and establish the proper
moral tone throughout the State. If
there should be recurrence of the crime,
then every one present, as second or
friend, should be vigorously prosecuted
and punished to the fullest extent of the
law. Sc far, however, as 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 worthy gentleman, and now the
law should speedily visit the punishment
which justice demands upon them.
They have already had immunity too
long. The officers Of the law should at
tend to their duties and proceed prompt
Iy to enforce the penalty of their crimes
against these gentlemen. Their offense
is too great against society to be even
temporarily condoned.