Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-01-06
THE CODE OF HONOR.

In the House of Delegates Monday bill
came up on its third reading and passage to
remove the political disabilities of S. 4.
Donahue, Richard B. Taylor, B. F. Nowlin
and Lucien Keith, Of the county of Fairfax.
Mr.. Hay said that he should vote against
the bill. What on earth is the use of hav-
| ing q law if we are not going to enforce 1t?
| If TIE law is not to be dead-letter why
| continue to relieve the disabilities of parties
who have incurred its penalties?
Mr.. Stuart Mr.. Cardwell, of Hanover, in
| the chair said that he was as much OPP
posed to duelling as any man, but the
| trainers of the Constitution, foreseeing that
there would be cases where those who had
incurred disabilities should have them re-
| moved, had placed that power and that
discretion in the hands of the General AS
sembly. At this time the county of Fairfax
has no representative on this floor, and the
speaker would say that he had been in.
| formed that the challenge in this case never
reached the gentleman to whom it was adj
dressed. 1t was the result of hot blood !;
| the parties were arrested and no harm was
done. The young man who bore the chal-
lenge was not of age. Under these cir
cumstances he hoped the House would not
draw the line here.
I Ollhtu OAHU ~ noo OCl Lolhly tAoO ehoe
! the Constitution had provided that the Gen.
eral Assembly by two-thirds vote might
remove such political disabilities; but his
view was that some good reason should be
assigned for relief 1t is not enough that
the party should simply send in his applica-
ton. The party should give reasons why
the Legislature should exercise its powers.
That, he took it, was the meaning of the
Constitution. He was opposed to duelling,
and didn't think the bravest men fought
duels. Some years ago, certainly, it took
more courage to decline than it did to 60 to
1.-The blocdless field of the duellist." We
would make no captious objection in this
case, but it was time that the Legislature
required some reasons to be shown for re-
lieving disabilities. Parties at least ought
to promise that they would not offend in
this respect any more.
Mr.. Ryan spoke in favor of relief in this
case, and hoped the bill would pass.
Mr.. Mayo thought that if it was to be un-
derstood that this House as rule will
grant every application, why the best thing
to do is strike the law from the statute
books. He knew nothing of this particular
case, but would say that when man desires
the removal of his disabilities it is his duty
to show that be is entitled to relief, or else
it is our sworn duty to vote against his ap-
plication. A case must be made out.
Mr.. Echols was no advocate OF duellng,
but he could see no reason why This Dill
should be treated differently from others:
The member from Alexandra Mr.. Stuarti
has stated that the challenge was never de
liyered that it was the outgrowth of hot
blood that no harm at all was done; and
surslv these are reasons enough for the re.
lief asked, and he hoped the bill would be
Mr.. Keen spoke against the practice of
dnelling and the practice of relieving the
disabilities of every one who asked it.
Mr.. Stuart made farther explanation,
vigorously presenting the merits OF this par
,icular case; and the bill was passed by
vote of 81 to 6.-Rick. Dispatch.