Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-06-09
THE puEILo IN THE SOUTH.

THE DUELLo IN THE SOUTH.
The duello appears to survive in the
Southern States in defiance of the advance
of reason. 1t has, in fact, a stronger POSI-
ton there than in France, for whereas IN
the latter country it has of late years be-
come little more than form, IN carrying
out which scarcely any danger is incurred
the Southern people still continue to tight
those fierce and sanguinary duels which
have become as extinct as the dodo in all
other parts of the civilized world. The
latest Southern duel, which was re-
ported in our Geographic columns yester.
day, is perhaps as fair an illustration as
could be had of the supreme unreason and
absurdity of the "code. c. n. Parker,
editor of the New Orleans Picdyune, had |
written an article apparently intimating |
doubts of the honesty of Major <. a. |
Purko, who held the dual position of State
Treasurer ar editor of the Times-Demo-
crat. Burke was offended by the Picayane |
article, but though he had a journal OF his
own in which to defend himself and excori-
ate his adversary, he could not be satisfied |
until his honor was indicated in the ortho-
dox Southern way. So he challenged far-
ker, and going out, was duly shot through
both legs. This is the remarkable manner
in which he has been indicated. Had he
been killed, we suppose his friends would |
have regarded the outcome as still more
honorable. But it requires Southern ed
ucation to comprehend how man who has
been charged with dishonesty can clear
himself by receiving bullet through his
legs, or how the fact of shooting an adver-
sary, or being shot by him, can affect the
matters upon which the quarrel was based.
Major Burke has been shot through his
legs, but the question as to whether the
editor of the Picay,tne was justified in
writing the article which elected the chal.
lenge remains unanswered. Perhaps if
Major Burke had shot the editor Of the
Picdyune it might have served to warn
other editors against attacking man who
was so good a marksman. But when the
aggrieved party obtains nothing better
than shot through the legs in vindication
of his damaged reputation, it is difficult to
see where the moral comes in, at least
from his standpoint. OF old the duel was
resorted to as test Of guilt, and in the or.
deal by combat the defeated party was
held to be convicted. Under that system
Major Burke's disaster would have con-
demned him, and his appeal to the "code
would only have completed his disgrace.
Now, however, it is not held that defeat in
duel proves the guilt of the defeated,
but it is impossible to say what it is which
is supposed to be concluded under such
circumstances. II man has grievance
it is quite clear that he cannot nd himself
of it by letting his enemy shoot him down.
If he shot his enemy he would at least
crafty his malignant feelings. But in most
duels there is no certainty about the out
come The party in the right is quite as
likely to be worsted as the party in the
wrong, and in that case all that has re-
suited is double wrong.
Nor is there any reason in the practice
of duelling. As to the courage demanded
for it, it is nothing more than nine men
out of every ten can muster on a
pinch and where public sentiment ap-
proves the "code," it really requires more
gallantry to refuse to fight than to stand
fire. But the system is as inconse1uent
and uncivilized as possible. There is no
possibility of deducing any conclusion
from it. Nobody knows to-day whether
or not Major Burke is an upright official.
All that is known is that he has been shot
through the legs. A man calls another
thief or liar, is called out, and shoots or
is shet. What does the result prove
Nothing at all. 1t is impossible to demon
strate probity or veracity by pulling
hair-trigger, any more than by carrying a
hod of mortar up ladder, or throwing 3
double somersault. The idea that probity
or veracity can be so established is nothing
else than ridiculous, and the community
that upholds the duello is obviously de.
icient both in reasoning capacity and in
the sense of humor. A duel is always
either horrible or farcical. When it
issues in the death or fatal wounding of
either of the combatants, it is q useless
and cruel murder. When both escape it is
preposterous. In either event it is sense.
less, brutal and stupid, and in all ways
more BETTING barbarous than civilized
ages.
For journalists to fight dueIs, however, is
more silly than for people who do not own
newspapers. For it is privilege of jour-
nalism that the editor can always ayenge
himself upon his enemies with his pen, and
if he understand his profession ne can in.
hict more pain with that simple implement
than he would with dueling pistol. For
two editors to abandon their superior and
civilized weapons and take to pistoling one
another, is the climax of absurdity. 1t is
as though two rifemen of the period were
to throw away their arms of precision,
encase themselves in armor, and begin
hacking at one another with battle. axes.
It is distinct reversion to barbarism, in
fact, and as such must be at once deplored
and condemned by the profession. Surely
there is paper and ink enough and to spare,
without seeking poorer and less incisive
means of offense and defense Major
Burke and Mr.. Parker have dishonored
journalism by their irrational and unciv-
ilized warfare, and they deserve to be
drummed out of the corps. An editor who
is SO thin-skinned Chat he cannot bear an
adverse newspaper comment, and SO slow
witted that he cannot rely for self defense
upon his professional talents, has evidently
mistaken his vocation. There is no room for
such clumsy and sensitive persons in pro
fession which more than all others calls for
insensibility of mental cuticle, and readi.
ness in retaliation.
pnT TTTcAr AaQpcaMEuTe