Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1882-03-02
THE DUELLO.
The Arguments that are offered
For and Against IL.


For and Against IL.
The practice Of duelling, resorted to for
the purpose Of settling some special diff
ference or quarrel, is as old as the hills;
though what is now specifically denoted
by the term dates only from the first half
of the sixteenth century. The duel was
not unknown to the Romans, and that the
Greeks were no strangers to 1t is evident
from the glowing accounts found in the
Iliad Of single combats, In modern times
the duel has been most Common in France.
The chivalric Francis l laid down the
principle "that the lie is never to be put
up with, without satisfaction, but by a
base-born fellow" Napoleon was averse
to duelling. but had to tolerate it, SO strong
q hold did it have in the minds Of French
men, though he always expressed a con-
tempt for duellists.
Duelling has been known in the United
States from the time Of the earliest settle
ments, the first personal meeting of the
kind having taken place between two
serving men at Plymouth In 1921. 1t is
thought that the ludicrous punishment
inflicted upon these combatants has done
much to create the difference Of opinion
with regard to the code that exists be-
tween the North and South. They were
tied together, neck and heels, for twenty
four hours.
Colonel Benton, in closing his account
OF the duel between Henry Clay and John
Randolph, says. Certainly duelling is
bad, and has been put down; but it is not
quite as bad as its substitute-re-
v~olyers, b~owie-knives, Safeguarding,
and street a~ssassinations under the prstext
Of self defense." All the legislation that
has been directed against 1t in the United
States-and it is much-has been fruit
less; and the labors of men OF the highest
character, to suppress it, have been equally
barren in more than one-half OF the Union.
The law in Nevada against duslliDg is so
comprehensive and stringent that in either
sending or accepting a challenge it would
be extremely difficult to avoid it.. The
crime for killing an antagonist in q duel it
defines as murder; and it makes any per-
son who charges another with cowardice
for not offering or receiving q challenge
guilty Of felony.
We are not aware that a duel was ever
fought in Nevada. Several notable in
stances, however, have come to our knowl-
edge in which duels we're about to occur,
but we're stopped by considering the opera
ton Of the statutes to disfranchise and
deprive professional men of the right to
pursue their avocations for a living.
Yet in the face Of this ~undeniably whole
some restraining influence of our law,
which has probably resulted in saving, at
least, several valuable lives; and notwith-
standing the fact that the weight Of legis-
lation in the world at large is against the
practice OF dueling, it remains still IN
open question whether there are not
nearly as many people who favor the code,
in some form or other, as those who are
| opposed to it. Not that there is any per-
son that can say he likes the
duello for itself. That it is bad is uni
versally admitted. The question to be an
swered in discussing the propriety of re-
sorting to the duel for the adjustment Of
personal grievances is not whether the
code considered per Sc is to be condemned
as vicious, but rather whether it Is or is
not to be preferred in a choice OF evils that
are inevitable. 1t Is extremely utopian to
presume that there will ever come q time
when personal quarrels among men will
cease; or that q certi$1 class Of disputes
will ever be adjusted without ecourse to
mortal combat. 1t may be called barbar-
BUS to fght, but men fight nevertheless.
They have always fought. and no one but
an unreasoning septimentalist will main
tain that this Is contrary to the princi-
plies Of human nature. The history Of the
race Ia q continuous and perpetual con-
Armation OF this fact. We are brought
face to face with this, perhaps, humiliat-
ing circumstance every day. Now, then,
the question recuIs, what are we going to
do about It'll
The argument against duelling runs
along about like this. Men cannot be
put on an equality in such q contest. Men
differ so much in the social scale; one mans
life is worth so much more than another's;
one OF the duellists is. perhaps, q married
man with o family dependent upon him
for support. and the other Is q single man
whose taking off will cause but little mate.
rial distress; again il is often like butchery
TO. fight q duel, because your antagonist
may be q marksman, whereas you are to-
tally unskilled in the use Of the pistol. or
the sword, or the knife, or any other wea-
pom that might be selected for the combat.
Really. when the whole argument against
duelling Ia boiled down, this is its syllabus.
On the other hand, always bearing in
mind that occasional mortal combats are
inevitable, the query is pertinent: Can it
be reasonably expected that the desidera-
tum Of equality will ever be found to exist
II 10 the rarest thing in nature that equals
ever fight. The rule is that there is bound
to be inequality between antagonists in
some respect or other. A man who does
not fight because he cannot recognize his
adversary as his social equal will not be
likely to fight at all, in the case supposed.
As to physical inequalities, they can be
rendered less in no way better than in the
code, which places the pale book-worm on
a level, other things, nerve, etc., being
equal, with the brawny gymnast.
And this much may be said of the duel
10, in refutation Of its alleged cold blooded-
ness and brutality, that it is the most eco
nomical way Of killing known. Only those
concerned in the quarrel are killed, and
they often shake hands ON the ground and
make friends. Innocent people are not
slaughtered by random shots on such oc-
casions,
One word more. Wherever the code Is
recognized, the social atmosphere is bet
ter. The results of Its observance are
sometimes ludicrous and f~arcical, no
doubt, but Its tendency IL to make men
careful of their tongues. They know that
| II they offend against the wholesome rules
OF gentoel society they must account for
the offense in the most serious and formal
manner; hence they are apt to keep q
guard upon their behavior, n are not
likely to offend unless they do so deliber-
ately. Serious personal difficulties delib-
erately engendered are few. 1t 10 the flip
pant and inoonsiderate who quarrel FREE
quently and stir up the most strife.
This Is our say on this subject. which
has become q matter Of universal comment
in Eureka within the last few days. We
felt bound to say something in the prem