The Newberry herald. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1865-1884, 1880-07-21
The Code DuellO.


essay on this subject. Whether 1t
is trrr justifabie to send or accept
a challenge, is question for each
man to answer for himself. That
it is a violation of law no one can
deny: the lazy is plain and explicit.
So is it a violation of law to resent
an insult, and to strike the man
who insults you, however grlevous
the insult may be. So, to carry
out the lae0 argument, man should
never fght-with fists, sticks, pls-
tolls, OF in any other way-ezcept
in absolute self defense. This law
is very seldom observed. The man
who receives a gross insult will
strike, law or no law; and if either
party is armed there is a strong
probability that one will be killed,
and the chances are that friends Of
the parties will rush in, and more
than one life will he lost. Consid-
ering the high temper and the I'M
pulsive character of the Southern
people, and looking at the large
number Of deaths that have ensued
from private brawls, it is a question
whether the number Of homicldes
would be reduced by more general
resort to the "Code". Take the
case of Cash and Shannon Sup
pose Shannon, instead of calling
Cash out. had attacked Cash on the
streets or highway-one Of them
would certainly have been killed :;
very likely others would have be-
come involved, and there might
have been q general slaughter OF
mutual friends. But, you say,
Shannon ought not to have noticed
the insult. Well, perhaps not; but
that leads to the position that we
have already stated-that a man
must not resent any insult. Estab-
lish this doctrine, and it places it
within the power of any mean,
cowardly bully to blast your repu-
tation, to villify and spit upon you,
and to render your life miserable
and a burden.
The argument of those who favor
the "Code" is, 1, that it settles diff
culties without endangering any
persons except those Immediately
concerned; 2, that it makes men
more circumspect in their deport-
ment towards each other and thus
renders insults of rare occurrence.
In this way it prevents rows and
brawls; 3, that it enables a man
who is small and physically weak
to protect himself against one who
might otherwise abuse and maltreat
him with impunity-any other mode
of resistance on his part would but
ensure additional abuse
The duel is not a test Of courage
among gentlemen. It does not
prove that man is a coward be-
cause he declines q challenge, and
those who favor the ''Code" do not
so regard it; the cowardice consists
in offering an insult when you do
not intend to give satisfaction for
it. If a man declines to fight on
the ground that he is conscien tious-
ly opposed to dueling his statement
will be taken as true, provided his
life is not of so desperate, reckless
and blood. thirsty a character as to
render such view improbable.
Men do not fight to establish a
reputation for courage, but to pro-
tect themselves from insult, abuse
and contumely.
We are not an advocate of duel
ing. On the contrary we hope
there will never be another duel in
the State, OF out of it. But whether
o man is ever, under any circum-
stances, justified in fighting we do
not feel called upon to answer. Let
each man do so for himself as the
occasion arises. It is time enough
then to say whether you will fight
or not.
The proper plan is for every man
to so conduct himself towards every
other man that there will be no
difficulties to settle.
AS to the Cash-Shannon duel,
the facts so far as stated in the
press, are these: W. L. DePass and
VIM. Shannon, lawyers, brought
suit against r. G. Ellerbe for a man
named Wienges for damages for
assault and battery, and recovered
a verdict for $4,000. In attempt
ing to make the money they found
that Ellerbe had confessed judg-
,,,on4 fo,. G7k 00O +o NTrc r r G