England's greatest statesmen were not so great as to ignore the custom. The Irish were famous for their duehstic procHvities. The Scotch were more wary. Two Plymouth serving-men inaugurated the system in America in 1621, and subsequently Boston has often indulged in this method of arbitration. The leaders of the revolution, and of subsequent political parties were not above this superstition.
In the hostile encounters of the California miners there was that same directness which characterized all their proceedings. Simple-minded and singlehearted they did not understand why, if they wished to kill a man, they should at the same time set themselves up to be killed by him. That might be the code; but it was a very foolish code. In any event it was murder; but it made a vast difference which did the killing. They could not understand how a debt should be cancelled by increasing it, how a wrong should be avenged by covering it with a greater wrong, or how the honor of the outraged husband or father should be healed by permitting the infamous tempter of female chastity to shoot him. To call it cowardly to take at disadvantage an antagonist was of no avail, for they would tell you that duellists, whipped to position by public opinion, are of all men the greatest cowards. Therefore, with blazing brain and blood red hot they did not wait for the tardy "lie direct; the "reply churlish " being enough for them.
By those who deal in human blood, who make the but<?hering of their fellows a profession which they follow for gain or glory, as well as those who adopt it as a fashion, the terms courage and cowardice are grossly misapplied. In civilized warfare courage is a sort of military idolatry, fostered for the greater efficiency of the organization. It is composed of the very qualities which it affects to despise, emniation, imitation, and fear. The soldier dare not brave an order with an opinion, dare not appear to be afraid,
