Year: 1873

| The Richmond Duel.


| Our able cotemperary, the Augusta Chron
| ncle and .Sensinel thus comments upon this


tragedy.


I'VE cannot see that the custom--no mat.
ter whence in came or by whom practiced-


admits of any defense. tits a violation alike OF
the laws of God, tho laws of man and the
laws Of common sense 1t is poweress to re-
pair wrong, or to redress an afront 1t is
not q test of manliness or courage, and it is
the worst species of murder because OF the
coolness and the delberation which, enter
into the offence. Its advocates usually say
in its behalf that it prevents tn dlsgracefule
scenes which accompany street rencontres,
and that it t:also does away with brute force,
and places the stroog and the weak upon the
same level. Wherein consists the difference
between a street fight and duel, save in
favor Of the former, we are unable to dis
cover. Eft be worse spectacle to witness
one man assault another upon the sidewalk
and pommel his body on account of real or
faucied wrong until the police or the by
stahders interfere than for the same men to


repair to some notorious place of meeting"


and, in the presence Of a hundred gaping
spectators, shoot at each other until one or


both fall wounded or dead, then this defense
may amount to something. The other plea


is equally as absurd: It does not place all
men upon the same level; but, on the con-
trary, places the novice entirely at the mercy
of the expert in murder. With regard to the
courage which the duelist is supposed to re-
quire, it has often been remarked that in
some of the most desperate meetings one or
both of the combatants were towards, and
we venture to assert that fear-moral
cowardice dread of the worlds opinion
has caused more duels than desire to avenge
injuries or heal wounded honor. The his
tory of dueling, for instance, shows us
that nine out of ten invitations to the field
have been sent for causes. the most trivial,
and that men have Of reuex xpfat.si yi'ld their
lives a hasty word, coutemptuous gesture,
or, as has been frequently the case, received
their death wound from some one who had
pat upon them real or imagined affront-
The folly of this modern substitute tor the
ancient ordeal of battle is abuadantly testified
to by the fact that the injured party is as Of
ten the sufferer as the injurer. 1t is prac-
tice which can settle no point.of honor, Tor
the parties remain in the same position at
ter as they did before the combat. Take
the Richmond affair-it is typical duel OF
the age. McCarty publishes, anonymously,
a poor and pointless epigram, which was sup
posed to refer 10 reigning belle. The mat
ter is discussed at a club room, and Mordecal'
without knowing the author, impulsively as
serts that if the piece was intended to bring
the lady into ridicule its writer was not
gentleman. The author discloses his indentity


and quarrel ensues, which is finally iameiy


arranged. A few days after the parties


meet again, and contemptuous accent


drawing; sneering mtonation brings about


collision and then duel, in which the
aggressor was only slightly wounded, while


the aggrcived party Is slaid. Because Me


Carty wrote bad verses and drawled his


speech insultingly, one man is killed and an


other is to risk the gallows in trial tor mur-
der Was there any logic in this? Did the
injured party receive satisfaction along with


ball in his stomach? We think not. Is


the casus Jelli-the wretched doggerel-


worth two human lives and tho shame and


anguish of perhaps dozen hitherto happy


families?


There can be no defense of this foolish


and wicked custom, and the sooner a


healthy public sentiment combines with the


law to exterminate it root and branch, the


better it will be for society and for the coun;


try.