594
THE GREEN BAG
at hand, the proof is easy, and contradic tion, in most cases, impossible. Some have suggested that the old ceremonial duel be revived and legitimized, with the proviso that neither firearms nor daggers be used; in other words, that the French duel should be transplanted to American soil. It is very doubtful whether it would flourish here. The street duel is usually fought with weapons carried concealed upon the persons of the combatants. If it were possible effec tually to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons, these deadly affrays would cease automatically. This, however, seems to be impossible of accomplishment by ordinary legislation; all the states have laws prohibit ing and punishing the practice, and yet it goes merrily on without surcease or appre ciable decrease by reason of such laws. However, while it seems to be impossible to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons by imposing a penalty for so doing, much good might possibly be accomplished by making the use of a concealed weapon, where death results, highly criminal per se, despite proof of self-defense. A law of this kind properly enforced would undoubtedly materially decrease the number of street duels, because there would be no defense for the survivor if he used a concealed weapon. If the use of a concealed weapon were thus made per se criminal, men would cease carrying them, and the many homi cides of all kinds which now stain our annals would be materially diminished. All hail and welcome the happy advent of that auspicious day! Under the theory of the old common law only cowards were permitted to kill in selfdefense; a man was compelled to flee like a craven and be cornered like a rat in a hole before he could legally deliver the coup de grd.ce to his adversary. The refinements of the bench and the rough-edged adminis tration of justice from the jury box finally succeeded in amending that absurd law, and now flight is no longer necessary, but the person attacked may pursue and kill his
adversary if necessary to his own protec tion. Equally senseless as the old law just cited is the modern law that no words justify an assault. By common consent a man who brooks a mortal insult without instantly resenting it stands disgraced in the eyes of all men. In these circumstances, then, can it be expected that such an unnatural and absurd law should command either respect or obedience? LAW VII of our Decalogue of Lawlessness ordains that it shall not; and LAW VII is enforced in all jurisdictions in this country; and it is right that it should be. The law of the land should not force any man to sacrifice his self-respect and the respect of his fellowmen in order to obey the law. Our lawless LAW VII makes the lie direct and certain other mortal insults equal to the first blow that justifies the immediate punishment of the offender. This doctrine is more in har mony with common sense and right reason, and should be legitimized and incorporated in the law of the land. It goes without say ing, of course, that when this is done legal safeguards should be provided to prevent its abuse. When the pioneer first pressed his adven turous way through the hidden mysteries of the enchanted forest that once covered this vast continent, his horse and his rifle were his only friends. When he established his solitary ranch on the lonely and farstretching prairie, his horses, his cattle, and other live stock were his only wealth. These were all the easy prey of thieves and marau ders. Small wonder, then, that they should become the objects of his special solicitude and protection. At first the horse and cattle thieves were unceremoniously hung as soon as they were caught. The same spirit of protection for these dumb members of the household survives and manifests itself to-day in LAW VIII of our decalogue, which presumes the guilt of the man accused of stealing any of them, and gives the animal instead of the accused the benefit of the
