unpleasant duty to serve on a committee of this kind, and that it would require more than ordinary nerve to serve on it. He would tell them that, if this committee was raised, it would be the occasion of much strife and difficulty. He should not like to serve on such a committee unless he should prepare himself at once for such encounters. He considered it entirely improper that the House should agitate this question at the present

time.

The Hon. Amasa J. Parker, of New York, said he regretted that he found himself compelled to differ in opinion from his friend from Maryland (Mr. Johnson); that he had heard from him no good reason expressed against the adoption of the resolutions. It was said that Congress had no power to legislate on this subject, and that that power was reserved to the States. Surely Congress has the power to act in reference to the District of Columbia, and it could not be denied that the House of Representatives had jurisdiction over its own members. His friend had said, that, if any member would state on this floor that the unfortunate transaction had not been conducted according to the rules of the "code of honor," he would vote for this resolution. Mr. P. said he made no assertion of that kind. He did not profess to be skilled in the nice technicality of those rules, as they were understood by some gentlemen here; that with his constituents the rules of honor were the rules of law, religion, and morality; but he would say that the transaction referred to was a violation of the laws of God and man, and called imperiously upon this House to guard against the recurrence of such heart-rending scenes; and every consideration of duty to the public and to ourselves required prompt and decisive action. His friend had said that the reference of this subject to a committee would probably lead to further collision, and a repetition of personal conflict. Mr. P. said he could not believe it. He had yet to learn that a member of this House could not on this floor, or in committee, fearlessly express his opinions, and discharge his duty, without fear of a personal attack. He had no fears on that subject for himself.

He admitted that, if the committee were to be confined to the question whether "the code of honor" had been departed from, personal controversy might grow out of it. Gentlemen might

well differ in discussing unwritten rules of such cobweb fineness, and about which, sir, honorable gentlemen might well differ in opinion. Sir, that committee would look beyond such limits;

they would have in view the honor and character of the nation and of this House, and the general welfare of the people.

It was said public opinion sanctioned the practice of duelling. He thought otherwise; and he was sure it would not be countenanced in those sections of the country with which he was familiar. But if public sentiment tolerated such a practice in any part of the country, it was the more important to adopt such measures on this occasion as would serve to correct it. He certainly was not disposed to act too hastily. It was proper to refer the matter to a committee. They would act deliberately, and he hoped would recommend some measures that would remedy the evil. He should therefore vote for the resolutions.

Mr. Dawson said that no gentlemen regretted more than himself the unfortunate occurrence which had taken place, but he considered that, when we were about to involve the feelings of all the gentlemen connected with the affair, we ought to pause before we acted. He would inquire of gentlemen what the result of this inquiry would be, and what benefit could accrue to the community from it. He admitted that Congress had a right to pass a law to prohibit duelling in the District of Columbia, and for such a measure, when brought forward, he would vote; but he would ask gentlemen what good was expected to result from this inquiry. This matter had no relation to the business of the public, so that, if it was gone into, it must be looked upon as an inquiry into the private doings of the members of the House out of these walls, and apart from their legislative character. In his opinion, this inquiry would only add to the excitement, and bring the state of the public mind to such lengths, as might be regretted by all of us.

If gentlemen desired by this inquiry to get arguments in favor of a law to prohibit duelling, he thought there was no necessity for it, because, in his opinion, no argument was needed to support such a measure. In the name of morality and of religion, he would say, let such a law be passed; but he would regret to see an inquiry of this kind instituted. Pass such a law, and do all that can be done in future to prevent it, but do not institute an inquiry into the present case for the purpose of gratifying the public mind, or for any other purpose. He referred to the dif ficulty of making an inquiry into a matter which had been conducted solely upon the principles of honor, which were only

*The italics are the author's.

recognized by a portion of our people, and trusted that the House would be satisfied by adopting a remedy for the future, without going into an examination of the past. To vote for such a proposition as that would be as far as he could go, and he hoped the House would go no further.

No. XI.

DUELLING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Extracts from the Debate in the Senate of the United States, on the Passage of "The Bill to prohibit the giving or accepting a Challenge in the District of Columbia to fight a Duel, and for the Punishment thereof," in March and April, 1838.

The HON. THOMAS CLAYTON, of Delaware, on the 30th of March, expressed his objections to duelling in a very pointed manner, and his sincere desire to do all in his power to suppress it. He very much doubted, however, the efficacy of the bill before them. Such was the severity of some of its provisions, that it would be next to impossible to procure convictions under it. And there were other objections which he could not reconcile to his mind. One of the provisions sought to make the sending of a challenge felony, which was only a misdemeanor in the eye of the common law. Mr. Clayton argued the subject at considerable length. He thought the provisions of the bill were not calculated to subserve the purposes for which they were intended. While he admitted the practice of duelling to be both illegal and immoral, yet he said it was not of that class of crimes which should subject offenders to the cells of a penitentiary, and make them the associates of the vilest felons. There was nothing in the offence that was either base, mean, or sordid; neither were those likely to be engaged in it persons whom we would dare to send to a penitentiary, to be classed with thieves and vagabonds. The moral sense of the community would be shocked at such a measure, and such a law would be rendered a mere nullity, from the interference of the Executive prerogative. He deprecated duelling as much as any man could do, and was disposed to go all reasonable lengths to prevent it. On the whole, he believed some legal provision necessary. If he could get the modification he desired, he would vote for the bill as

amended by the Judiciary Committee, although he sincerely believed it would not have the good effect its friends designed.

Mr. Prentiss, of Vermont, replied at some length, contending that the practice of duelling was condemned by all laws, human and divine; that it was regarded as a crime by every government in Christendom, was subversive of the great principles of the Christian religion, and ought not to be tolerated by any Christian people. Mr. P. looked as much to the moral power that this law would have, as to its penal enactments. He asked if any man of honor could allow himself to fight a duel after the passage of such a law? The subject was, in his opinion, a momentous one. We were acting not for the present time, but the passage of this bill would have its due weight on all after generations. The people of this country expect, nay, demand of us, some enactment by which this odious and sinful practice may be discontinued and for ever prevented.

Mr. Linn, of Missouri, was of opinion that the Senator from Delaware had treated the subject with so much sound practical sense, that little else could be left to be said on the subject. What community (said Mr. L.) could be found that would pronounce a man either a murderer or a felon, who might have chanced to kill another in fair and equal combat? No man, he was persuaded, that came to act on his responsibility as a juror, would be prepared to render such a verdict. Many of the States had passed severe penal enactments in relation to this matter, and yet where was the State where such laws had been carried into effect? Other legislatures again had sought milder remedies, such as punishing duelling by disfranchising their citizens, rendering them for ever after incapable of holding offices of profit or trust, honor or emolument; such laws, he maintained, had a more wholesome action than those severe, unjust, and cruel enactments, because the one was generally carried into effect, while the other was little better than a dead letter. To illustrate the effect of public opinion on this subject, Mr. L. instanced a case in his own State, where the people were as much adverse to fighting as those of any other in the Union, (though he was aware that a contrary opinion prevailed among many in relation to Missouri,) where a small man, for a supposed offence, was cruelly lashed by a large one, the result of which was a challenge on the part of the small one to fight, in which duel the large man was shot twice, the last wound mortal. The survivor was found guilty under the laws of Missouri, when a petition was

got up, signed almost unanimously by the people, and presented to the Legislature, which body remitted the penalties almost by acclamation; and so Mr. L. said it would be in all like cases, either the Legislature or Executive would step in to counteract the law. If such a bill could be introduced as would strike at the root of the evil, it would cheerfully have his support. He was aware that duelling was not defensible on principles of Christianity, neither was national warfare; and yet how frequently had it been engaged in, and justly too, by Christian nations. All the Legislatures of the Union have concurred in denouncing the practice of duelling as evil in itself, and yet have we not seen them come in to stay the laws. From what little he had seen, it appeared to him that fighting was like marrying, the more barriers that were erected against it, the surer were they to come together.

Mr. Smith, of Connecticut, spoke long and vehemently in favor of the bill, maintaining that all enactments against crime had grown out of some past act of villany that shocked the moral sense of the community. The object of this law was not so much to prevent those fond of duelling from engaging in it, as to protect those coming from States where the people were not fond of murder or killing in any shape. For his own part he was not afraid of any man with pistol or sword; but he advocated the bill to protect the representatives of New England from those gentlemanly assassins or banditti, who might seek to call them out for words spoken in debate, and shoot them in a fair and gentlemanly manner. Mr. S. alluded, in no measured terms, to the late transaction, in which a representative had lost his life; and said, if the instigator of that murder had been in Connecticut, he would no more have escaped than if he had gone up and shot down his victim in the street. Mr. S. was for arresting this practice in its incipiency, by striking at once at the root of the evil, and making all persons, however remotely concerned, punishable. He thought the man that advised to such a step was as bad as the principal, and would treat him accordingly. Mr. S. could not draw any distinction between a murder in a duel, and out of it; and he maintained there was none, save that which grew out of the morbid imagination of gentlemen on such matters. Was not the effect the same to the bereaved wife, the children, made orphans? and was not the moral sense of the community alike shocked? These were questions for the advocates of duelling to answer. He thought