The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-03-20

"a are not enforcing the penal laws Of othe
States, nor the penal laws Of our own State
ior this Is inficting no punishment; bu
are simply. carrying our own laws int
| eXeCution.'
l. 1t is remedial measure, and that ''nt
d persons life shall be periled by the practic,
or duelling" that the State engraftcd upoi
o the Constitution its anti-ducling policy
: and remedial laws are always to be con
! strued so as to suppress the mischief ant
advance the remedy 1 Black, Com. 81
a Brlen VS., Williamson, Howard, Miss
4 Rep, p; 23. But by holding that all citi
, zens of the State, so soon as they pass
beyond its limits for other purposes, may
send or accept challenges to fight duels
and may even fight duels, and then return
home, neither dsfranchised nor disquali-
ned to hold Office in the State, we virtually
, strike from the Constitution what was
intended to be prominent and all-peryad-
ing feature oft?
The clause in the Constitution. "or go
out of the State to fight duel" is, we
believe, very generally misapprehended.
1t is not limitation or Orrestriction upon the
section i'll which it occurs, so that it is to
be understood that to fight duel out of
the State, unless the person leaves the State
for that purpose, is not within the prohi-
bition, but ii is really, in itself, an act
| which, when committed, places the offender
under the prohibition. In word, the
meaning is, if we go out Of the State to
light duel, even though no duel occurs,
or no challenge passes, dsfranchise-
ment and disqualification for office follow.
The revised Constitution adopted in
1882 and superseded by the one now in
force, contained this provision:
Art. 7. Sec. 2. The Legislature shall pass such
laws to prevent the evil practice of dueling, as
they may deem Necessary, and may require all
officers before they enter ON the duties OF their
respective oiices to take the following oath or
affirmation: II do sOlemnly swear Tor affirm as
the case may be) that | have not been engaged
in duel by sending or accepting challenge to
night duel, or ty fighting duel, since the LIST day
OF January in the year OF Lord, 1888, nor will
be so engaged during my continuance in office
50 help me God"
Whilst this constitutional provision eX-
listed, the legislature passed laws, making
duelling Il disqualification for office, and
providing for its punishment. But It did
not adopt the prescribed constitunal OATH
and ineliglbiity to the office being imposed
by no higher authority than the legislature,
was removable at the pleasure of that body; !
and the result was that duelling was not /
wholly suppressed. Had the foregoing
oath been imposed upon all officers it would .
certainly have embraced dues fought by !
citizens out of the State as well as those
fought within it. How could citizen
who had given or accepted IL challenge or
fought duel subsequent to January 1st.
1888, no matter where, have sworn that
she had not been engaged in duel by
sending or accepting a challenge to fight
duel, or by fighting duel'' since that date
would not the last clause of
the oath "nor will | be so engaged during
my continuance in office" have prohibited
duelS everywhere, out of the State as well
as in it?
The revised constitution was suspended