The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1922-08-28

AiC oldtColIldh Woulo nave HIS yesterdays right He would know the history of duelling Murder has not been entirely checked by society. but duellfng, which increased murders, is pret- ty well eliminated. It survives in an attenuated form, here and there
 Could Richilieu, prelate and statesman, be called from the grave and the story told to him, he would probably say, '"The murder. I forgive, for the duel. he must go to the eaIlows."
 In the time of the great card inal. says De Houssaye. when friends met in Paris, their first question was, ''Who fought yes- terday? Who will fight today?" They fought in day or night, un- der moon. or by glimer of torches. for any or no cause. A word, a gesture, a question, was pretext enough The principals were aided by their seconds, who also fought, lest they be thought lacking in courage
 The cardinal made an edict imposing death penalty on any who killed his adversary in g. duel, on any who sent a second challenge to a duel. Count De BouttevtIle. of the powerful house of Montmonrency, who had fought duels, fought 8. twenty second, in broad daylight, in the Palace Royal With his second he was arrested. The cardinal cut off both their heads.
 Five years afterward, two gentlemen killed one another in a duel The cardinal stripped their bodies and caused them to be hung head downward, in the sight of the people. By such measures as these duelling was almost driven out of France. It survives there the form of blood less and ridiculous contests.
 The king of Sweden sent a challenge to Napoleon, who re- piled, 'I will send you a fencing master as plenipotentiary." But Alexander Hamilton, one of Americas greatest men, accepted the invitation of Aaron Burr, and Burr killed him, a great scandal in the early history of America.
 The private duel, as distin- guished from the judicial com bat, was not common before the sixteenth century. Ha1lam at tributes their frequency to the barbarous practice of wearing swords as a part of domestic dress. The bearing of this evil dence upon the proposition to abolish the pistol is quite obvi- ous.
 The pistol in the pocket pro- vohes sudden killings as certainly as the sword at the side did the same thing.
 The judicial duel was intro duced in a superstitious age to check false swearing. It took the : trial from the church and gave it to the state. Among a warlike people trial by combat was fair CT than it might seem today.
 In France a certain Jacques Legris was accused by. the wife of Jean Carrouge of having in- troduced himself by night in the guise of her husband and abused her. Parliament ordained duel, which was fought in the presence of Charles VI. Legris was beaten and was imediateIy hung. Afterward a criminal, ar rested for another offense, con- fessed the outrage. A failure so palpable administered a severe DlOw 10 the Jud1claI combat.
 Bergen appears to have thought of that duel as a means of excul- pating homicide. This is the history of duelling The fight |. ing was seldom fair. There were bulIies who made a business of it, ard duel was frequently, like the affair in New Jersey, no more than murder.
 We may learn that e-1Ip int ing and gun keeping does pro- yoke murder. The American Bar Association is right, when it saws get rid of the pistol.