Duelling

Lagt week we quoted from the Adverliser an apology for Mr. Clay's duels, because other great men had been duellists. The State Journal, in its anxiety to defend Mr. Clay, attempts to show that duélling in Mr. Clay was a very venial, partibnable ofFence, altliough m the case of Wi6e, it wns justly denounced by the venerable Adams as Murder! But read the article. "Mr, Clay ha3 given the best evidence thai he heartily condemns the practice of duélling. He advocnted and voted for the law niaki it a high crime in the District of Cohimbia - ín the arlicle we quote from the Signal endorses the fnlse ineinuation of H. A. Wise, especting Mr. Clay'e counection with thf Cilley duel. Is the testimony of J. Q. Adnms, who was in Washington at the time?, entilled to no weisrht? He haa repeaiedly charged Wise with the crime ol murder, for his connection with that wicked affsif. Wise, writhing ;inder the imputotion, seeks lo im plicate Henry Clay, who did what he conh) to prevent the duel, and the Sigr.al endorse? Wise. It is an easy matter for Northern men to condemn duelling, very cheap withal. wlien fighting would only subject them to reproach and contempt. But is it not true, that our etate of mind respeeting particular nets and practices, depends very much upon thr moral atmosphere of the society in which we have always lived? This view was very forcibly stated by Mr. Clay in his remarks upon the bill to punish duelling in the District, and lie advocated the bili on the ground that it wns adnpted 10 change public opinión on duelling ut the SuiUh.Jt is utterly ralee to cali Mr. Cloy "a diieliist noio in heart, feeling nnd practice." We have sjood reasons for the belief that "in heart, feeling anrl practice," he is utterly opposed to duelling: that if he has ever been a duellist he is not one noto. We can very well con ceive that a young man who is no: a duellist, but at heatt opposed to duelling, may, when living in a community where a false public opinión upholds rluc]linr, be led info a duel. Such a man wants moral courage, but he is not depraved' Thus, the Journal argües that Mr. Clay, in fighting his first duels, showed a want "moral courage," but not "depraviiy! We 6ti8pect Mr. Clay will scarcely thank the Journal for svch &n opology. Mr. Clay 'e duels are not merely the result of youthful indiscretion. He shot twice at John Randolph in hts matura ycars, when he was Secretary of St'ate, for wonis spoken in debate; and he was the challenger. It is but three or four years 6ince tbe whole country was alarmed with the Tumors of an intended duel between himand another Senator. We heard nothing ofany conscientious ecrupJes of Mr. Clay then! He was nearly sixty years old at thattime, and had had ampie opportunitiei fbr reflection. But is duelling a mere indiecretion? Is it not considered by the best legal authri jties as Murdbr? And would not the Whip candidato for the Presidency be sent to our State Prison for o period not exceedmg twenty years, shoiild he fight a duel in Michigan? The Journal canot deny this, but in order to defend the man, it palliates his crime. Aa the truth of the statements of Mr. Wise re pecting Mr. Clay's agency ín the death of Cilley, we do not know that Mr. Olay hna ever denied t.