political adherents. Broderick, in reading Terry's speech, in a momentary fit of anger, as appears most abundantly from the facts, declares that he had formerly believed that Terry was an honest judge, but that he took back his former opinion. This remark being reported to the judge, the latter is induced to wait two months, until the election campaign was over, when he writes to the senator, and asks him to retract his intimation upon his lionesty.
" Taking the matter at this point, we say that the quarrel was not of such a deadly character as to make it absolutely necessary that a meeting should take place. Say that the seconds and advisers of both parties had been peaceably disposed, had been governed by a strong desire to prevent the shedding of blood, and we hold that it would have been easy to have prevented a duel. Mr Broderick distinctly stated that his remarks at the International hotel were called out by Judge Terry's speech in Mr Benton's church. Now, what prevented Judge Terry from saying that in that speech he did not intend to say anything personally dishonoring or offensive to the senator? After reading that speech, we think that such a disclaimer, while it would in all probability have led to an amicable settlement, would have been in consonance with the truth. Mr Broderick, after such a disclaimer, if proper counsels had prevailed, could with honor have withdrawn his passionate remarks made at the International; and what has terminated in a sad calamity might then have ended in an exchange of courtesies. But even if Terry had been obstinate, and refused to modify his first obnoxious language, since that of itself was properly no cause of mortal quarrel, it would have been more magnanimous and honorable in Broderick to soften the bad spirit of his own remarks so as to have taken away even the pretext of a duel. Where there is a will there is a way. The honor of Mr Broderick, we think, could have been preserved in the eyes of all
