Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter XIII 1923 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Joy Fisher http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00001.html#0000031 October 25, 2004, 11:54 pm CHAPTER XIII. THE SAVANNAH ANTI-DUELLING ASSOCIATION PROMINENT CITIZENS UNITED IN MOVEMENT TO CHECK THE INCREASING PRACTICE OF DUELLING BY EDUCATION OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT AND THE INVOKING OF THE LAW WHEN REQUIRED—COMMITTEE ON CONCILIATION A FEATURE OF THE ASSOCIATION'S WORK—ITS ANNIVERSARY ORATORS—OUTCOME OF DIFFICULTIES BETWEEN MILLEN AND POOLER, KERR AND GUERARD, BLANE AND McKENZIE, ROSSIGNOL AND GUERARD, BOURKE AND ARNOLD—KILLING OF STARKE BY MINIS, AND STILES BY MORRISON—BENJAMIN EDWARD STILES TURNS DOWN CHALLENGE FROM JOSEPH FAY —HOW FORMER JUDGE LAW, ACTIVE IN THE ASSOCIATION'S WORK, STOOD READY IN LATER YEARS TO RESENT AN INSULT ON THE FIELD OF HONOR. A blow, an intimation of dishonesty, a reflection on veracity, a sharp difference of opinion on a political issue, an accusation of cheating at cards, an insinuation of unchastity on the part of a woman—these and other offences of less magnitude constituted the provocations that justified challenges. So frequent had become the duels in Savannah, and so rampant the spirit that encouraged and prompted hostile meetings as a means of settling personal disputes, even though the actual fatalities were rare, that a determined and concerted effort was felt to be necessary in order to educate public opinion against duelling, and gradually lead to the abandonment of the practice of resorting to the pistol or rifle when politics or other cause of estrangement changed erstwhile friends into temporary enemies. To this end a meeting of citizens was held in the Long Room of the City Exchange on December 26, 1826. Perhaps the Christmas spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" may have played its part in bringing about the gathering. A number of clergymen and prominent men of affairs attended. Dr. George Jones, who was probably mainly instrumental in calling the meeting, was chosen as chairman, and Joseph Gumming as secretary. The constitution of the recently organized Charleston Anti-Duelling Association was read and it was resolved that the chairman should call another meeting of all interested citizens on January 1. The advertisement for this meeting said: "It is presumed that there will be but one opinion as to the propriety and necessity of such an association and therefore a full attendance is expected." The second meeting was largely attended. Judge William Davies was called to the chair, Rev. S. B. Howe, pastor of the Independent Presbyterian Church, delivered an address on the general subject of duelling and moved the formation of an association for "the purpose of restraining and, if possible, suppressing the practice of duelling." This was seconded by Mr. William B. Bulloch and adopted, and to draft the constitution the following committee was appointed: Rev. S. B. Howe, Rev. Abiel Carter, of Christ Church, Rev. Henry 0. Wyer, of the First Baptist Church, Dr. James B. Read, William B. Bulloch, Anthony Barclay, Thomas Young, William Law. The constitution as adopted set forth that the subscribers "considered the practice of duelling as a violation of all law, both human and divine, as hostile to the peace and good order of society, and as destructive to the happiness of domestic life, and being desirous of checking and if possible suppressing so serious an evil, do agree to associate together for the purpose as the Savannah Anti-Duelling Association." It was further provided, as probably the most important feature of the work laid out for the Association, that a committee of seven should be appointed which "should endeavor by seasonable and friendly interposition, with or without the aid of the civil magistracy, as may seem to them most expedient, to prevent the occurrence of any contemplated or appointed duel, of which they may have information or well founded apprehensions, to procure from time to time the publication of any such essays' or papers against duelling as they may deem calculated to operate for the correction of the error of the prevalent opinion on the subject, and .in general to adopt all prudent, honorable and legal measures for lessening as much as possible the frequency of the practice in this community, and gradually effecting its entire suppression." All members of the Association were to give to its standing committee any information or intimation of duels which came to them. By mediation it was hoped to bring about amicable adjustments. If that failed, then recourse was evidently to be had to the law to prevent meetings, if possible. Essays against duelling were to be printed in the local papers, and. as a matter of fact, several were printed, painting in glowing language the evils resulting from the custom, and pointing out wherein duelling violated the laws of God and of the State. The annual meeting was to be held on the second Tuesday in January of each year, at which time a suitable address was to be delivered by an orator selected the year before. As the orator for the first annual gathering, Anthony Barclay, prominent as a merchant and literateur, was selected. On January 9 a third meeting was held at which officers were elected for the Association, as follows: President, Dr. George Jones. Vice-presidents, Wm. B. Bulloch, William Davies. Secretary and Treasurer, C. W. Rockwell, merchant and bank president, who removed North and was appointed United States Commissioner of Customs by President Taylor. Standing Committee, Anthony Barclay, A. B. Fannin, William Law, Alexander Telfair, Benjamin Edward Stiles, Richard F. Williams, Joseph Gumming. This staff of officers made a highly representative group of the best Savannahians of that day. No one ever stood higher in the community than he who was chosen to head the Association, and who apparently continued its president throughout its life. Dr. George Jones, son of the patriotic Dr. Noble Wymberly Jones, had a long life of public usefulness. He was a member of the Georgia Constitutional Convention of 1798. He served as an alderman of the city in 1793-94,1802-03, 1814-15, and as mayor in 1812-14. In 1804, although not a lawyer, so much confidence was felt in his strong common sense and high sense of justice between man and man, that he was appointed Judge of the Superior Court and served with entire satisfaction to the public for four years. In 1807 he filled for a few months an unexpired term in the United States Senate. A noble type of unselfish manhood, his interest in the Anti-Duelling Association arose from a strong conviction of the curse the custom had been to his State, and he was unceasing in his efforts to broaden and strengthen the influence of the Association. Deeply concerned in the injuries wrought by intoxicants, he also became president of the Savannah Temperance Association. At the first anniversary meeting held in January, 1828, a prize of $50, or a gold medal, was offered for the best essay on duelling. A committee was appointed to pass on the essays submitted, composed of John Cumming, James M. Wayne, Richard W. Habersham, William Law, Matthew Hall McAllister. The prize was to be awarded at the next annual meeting and Matthew Hall McAllister was selected as the orator for that occasion. McAllister was winning recognition as a lawyer and public speaker and as a man of broad culture. His oration in 1829 was evidently replete with historical allusions and dealt with the subject in a most forceful way. The editor of "The Georgian" honored him with a special comment: He could not agree with McAllister, the editor said, "in reference to his strictures upon the remarks made by the biographer of Charles V, relative to duelling, and must still continue to think that the vice of duelling now sought to be suppressed is a relic of chivalry, though moldering and decayed; that the spirit of chivalry in it was probably corrupted, like every other channel of thought or of feeling, through the influence of Italian morals, which then ruled the court, the camp and the grove throughout the whole of Europe, engendering deceit, exciting a feverish thirst for revenge, and creating a strong disposition toward the coarsest licentiousness everywhere." The Chatham Artillery attended this anniversary meeting in a body, "dressed in their new and splendid uniforms." The gold medal for the best essay was awarded to William Jay, of Bedford, N. Y. William Law was selected to deliver the third anniversary address. Whether it was due to the influence of the Anti-Duelling Association is not clear, but it is quite apparent that for several years after its organization there was a lull in the hostile meetings. It may have been the fear of prosecution brought about by the Association, or perhaps the invoking of the good graces of its standing committee as a medium of conciliation, or both combined, that checked the headstrong in their eagerness to meet each other on the field of honor. To its efforts, too, may have been due the action of the legislature in passing the act signed by Gov. John Forsyth, on December 19, 1828, requiring that all civil and military officers appointed on and after July 1, 1829, should take an oath that they had not, since that date, been engaged in a duel, either directly or indirectly, as principal or second, nor given a challenge, or knowingly carried or delivered a challenge or message purporting to be a challenge, either verbally or in writing. The awakening of public opinion through the Association doubtless had a salutary influence for a time, but like all other reforming agencies its energies slackened with the passage of the years1, its influence ebbed, and finally it passed from the stage of action. The last advertisement of its annual meeting apparently is that for 1837, but it continued its existence for some years after. It had served a good purpose during its brief life, but the period that immediately followed its decease seems to have been marked by a recrudescence of duelling, with a swamping of the carefully nurtured adverse opinion to the custom, and a reaction that seems to indicate that there had been a chafing at the bit of repression during the years of the Association's curbing restraints. Its anniversary orators were all men of the highest position in the professional, business and social life of Savannah. They were: 1828. Anthony Barclay, prominent merchant, British consul, and recognized as one of the classical scholars of the city. 1829. Matthew Hall McAllister, prominent at the Georgia bar and in State Democratic politics until he removed to California, where he was appointed Federal judge by President Pierce. He was mayor of Savannah in 1837-39, resigning from that office. A pen sketch of McAllister, published in the Columbus Sentinel, in 1838, described him in this fashion: "A man apparently about thirty-five years of age, stout and athletic in his person, with a countenance that could not be mistaken for its expression of candor, magnanimity and benevolence. His hair is a light auburn and worn in the style of a studioso, fresh from the halls of old Cambridge. His face appears beardless. As an orator he is graceful, fiery, fascinating, and in all things quite Shakesperean. As a speaker he is fluent, persuasive, forcible, and being a ripe scholar his ideas are clothed in language chaste, rich and copious." 1830. William Law, who had been Solicitor-General 1817-21, and succeeding to the Judgeship of the Superior Court on the death of Judge Davies in 1829 served until 1834. Until his death he was one of the leaders of the Savannah bar. 1831. Joseph Gumming, a leading merchant of his time and founder of the First Presbyterian Church, Justice of the Superior Court and for some years President of the Marine Fire Insurance Bank. 1832. George B. Gumming, brother of Joseph, successful merchant, and prominent in the Independent Presbyterian Church. 1833. William Henry Stiles, Solicitor-General 1833-36, Congressman 1843-45, minister to Austria and author of a "History of Austria." It was said of him, "As an orator he was noted for his faultless rhetoric and education, and as a gentleman for a grace and polish of manners not to be excelled." Judge Clark wrote of him: "He was master of a soft, melodious and magnetic voice. His speeches were all finished orations, and fell delightfully upon the ear and understanding." 1834. William H. Williams, principal of the Chatham Academy, and a man of scholarly attainments. 1835. Robert M. Charlton, Judge of the Superior Court 1835-37, United States Senator 1852-53, well known Georgia author of his day. Of him Judge Richard H. Clark wrote: "He was a lawyer and judge of the first ability, but great as that was he exceeded it in the perfection of his private and personal character." 1836. S. T. Chapman, of the Chatham Academy. 1837. Rev. J. L. Jones1, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, then located on Broughton street. The type of men who consented to deliver the annual philippics against duelling, their high standing in the community as leaders of opinion and as directing forces in its public activities, shows the aroused conscience of thinking men at a time when duelling was claiming its many victims throughout the country. Dr. John Gumming—first president of the Savannah Branch of the United States Bank—was elected vice-president in 1830 to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Judge Davies. William Bee became secretary and treasurer in 1834. In that year Patrick Houstoun became chairman of the standing committee, he and Joseph W. Jackson taking the places on the committee of Alexander Telfair and Joseph Gumming. Some years after the Association ceased its activities its re-written records were placed with the Georgia Historical Society. In the course of time they were forgotten, buried among the lumber that always accumulates. It was only recently that in the cleaning up of the books and archives at Hodgson Hall the dusty old volume was brought to light, making available information not found in the newspapers of the period during which the Association labored. From the minutes it appear that the Anti-Duelling Association had hardly begun its noble mission of good will to men when its altruistic offices were effective in preventing a meeting between two well known Savannahians, George Millen and Robert W. Pooler. This was in May, 1827. The procedure adopted by the Standing Committee is well shown in the report of its secretary, C. W. Rockwell, in a copy of the letter sent in its name to Mr. Pooler: "It has been intimated that there exists a difference between yourself and Mr. George Millen, which it is apprehended may lead to serious results. As members of that committee, Joseph Gumming, Anthony Barclay and Alexander Telfair, Esqs., beg leave to propose to you that any differences which may exist be submitted to an amicable reference—to gentlemen either in or out of this Society, in whose integrity and honor you may have entire confidence. The committee will be happy to hear from you in reply as soon as your convenience will admit, and by their direction your communication will not be opened unless there be one also from Mr. Millen. They will meet promptly at six o'clock this afternoon, when it will be very desirable to have your reply. We believe you will receive this in the spirit which dictates it, and not as an officious interference." The principals to this affair required a pledge that no legal steps would be taken by the Association, either by prosecution or otherwise, before they would consider its offices. The committee so pledged and Joseph Gumming and William Law were appointed to wait on the friends or seconds, S. Philbrick and Col. M. Myers, and obtain their consent to refer all differences to gentlemen of their selection. As a result the arbitration of the trouble was placed in the hands of W. C. Daniell and William Bee, neither of whom was then a member of the Anti-Duelling Association, and by them an amicable settlement was reached. This was the first feather in the cap of the Association and it was with a peculiar satisfaction that in its first annual report the Standing Committee advised its1 members that "No duel has been fought in this vicinity since the Association's formation and the committee have reason to believe that this is partly owing to the influence of the Association." Again, in the second annual report, that for 1828, the committee likewise reported that there had been no duel fought between Savannahians. The meagre minutes of the next three years, 1829, 1830 and 1831, throw no light on the duelling situation, except the inference, from the absence of specific statements, that there were no meetings under the code, or that the Association's work was quietly and effectively done and it was not deemed necessary to make a permanent record of it. In August, 1832, though, the Standing Committee moved to adjust a trouble between James Kerr and Mr. Guerard, who had chosen as their seconds William McKay and A. Drysdale, and "were about to settle a dispute by an appeal to deadly weapons." This affair was "adjusted between the seconds in an amicable manner." In another trouble between two citizens, though, the committee signally failed as a mediating influence, through no fault of its own, and one of the most notable tragedies of that period ensued. This was also in August, 1832. Information was1 given to the secretary that "An affair of honor existed between James Jones Stark and Dr. Philip Minis," with Charles Spalding acting as the friend of the latter and Thomas M. Wayne as the friend of Stark. Letters were sent by the secretary at once to each of the seconds, tendering the services of the Standing Committee and urging an arbitration of the differences. Unfortunately Mr. Spalding did not receive the letter which was left at his residence. As the minutes set forth, "About an hour after the sending of these letters, Mr. Stark was attacked and slain with a pistol at the City Hotel, on the Bay, by Dr. Minis. It is said that Mr. Stark was in the act of sending a reply to the committee's letter when some circumstance drew him into the bar room where he met his antagonist." "This record is made," continued the report, "lest it should ever be enquired, where was the Anti-Duelling Association and its Standing Committee on this occasion?" "The Georgian" gave a very meagre reference to the tragedy: "A most melancholy occurrence transpired in this city on Friday last (August 10). James Jones Starke, of Glynn county, formerly of Savannah, was1 shot at the City Hotel, by Dr. Philip Minis, through the breast, and almost instantaneously expired. This is, indeed, a most unfortunate circumstance, which has cast a gloom over the whole community, as both parties are extensively connected in this city." In those days a favorite amusement of the leading young men of the city was playing quoits. A "Coit Club," as it was called, embraced many citizens of prominence, and at its grounds on the outskirts of the city they gathered for their sport. It was here that the difficulty occurred between Starke and Minis that led to the shooting of the former. Prior to this there had been antagonism existing between the two men, which only needed intensifying to furnish the climax of a challenge. The additional provocation came in a personal allusion by Starke, resented by Minis as insulting. With no apology forthcoming there was a quick drift toward a duel, which was only prevented by the unfortunate meeting between the young men and a resumption of the difficulty in a public place. The City Hotel at that time was a famous little hostelry, given a most enviable reputation throughout this section by the skilful management of Capt. Wiltberger who, as a packet captain had learned to cater to the wealthy planters and other travelers and had been induced by their assurances of support to quit the water and become a Boniface. Its cellars held the finest vintages of Europe and its whiskies and brandies were of unexcelled qualities. Its bar was the rendezvous of the leading young men of the city and of all the country between Savannah and the Florida line. It was a day when all drank and the Savannah Temperance Society, headed by men of influence, sought merely to restrain an intemperate use of intoxicants. One can readily perceive that the atmosphere of this gathering place of the young bloods of the town was well calculated to quickly inflame the angered feelings' of men already intent on a hostile meeting. No record has come down of what passed between the principals, or what part others took in the rencounter, but the eventual acquittal of Dr. Minis seemed to prove that he had either acted on the defensive or had provocation sufficient to justify his action. Dr. Minis was arrested and indicted. The trial which came off in January, 1833, was a famous one in the annals of Chatham. Some of the most prominent attorneys of the Savannah and Charleston bars were employed in the prosecution and defence. The State was represented by Col. Joseph W. Jackson, Solicitor General; Col. Seaborn Jones, of Columbus; Charles S. Henry and Joseph L. Shaffer, Esqs. "The defence," the "Georgian" stated, "was ably conducted by George W. Owens, John C. Nicholls, Richard R. Cuyler, John Millen and Robert M. Charlton. Esqs., of this city, and James L. Petigru and Solomon Cohen, Esqs., of South Carolina." The trial extended over six days; and "was closed with a lucid and impartial charge to the jury from Judge Charles Dougherty, of the Western Circuit. The jury returned into court after being absent two hours, and rendered a verdict of 'Not Guilty'." The disqualification of Judge William Law and the bringing here of Judge Dougherty to try the case may have been due to Judge Law's connection with the Anti-Duelling Association and the part he had been called on to play as a member of its Standing Committee in seeking to reconcile various parties and prevent duels. In 1833 the Association's committee on mediation had a prospective meeting between Surgeon Blane and Lieut. McKenzie, of the United States army, brought to its attention. "The committee did not interfere as several gentlemen were taking all the measures which circumstances required." The difficulty was adjusted without exchange of shots. This year, too, in September, the committee apparently for the first time resorted to the authorities to back its determined efforts to prevent duelling in Chatham "having been bound to keep the peace there," came from that state to Savannah to settle their differences with duelling pistols. Letters preceded them, urging that steps be taken to prevent the meeting. "The committee had warrants issued for them and placed in the hands of the sheriff, but the principals were kept concealed and no arrests could be made." "The next day a number of gentlemen interfered, the warrants were suspended, and a friendly settlement ended the matter." The Anti-Duelling Association properly felt that it had maintained its position before the community and that the delay caused by its action had given others the opportunity to intervene successfully. Even as late as forty years after this, Carolinians coming to Savannah to arrange for duels were checked by threats of arrest or the actual issuance of warrants. As a rule, though, from 1820 to 1860, citizens of the lower part of that state, seeking the opportunity outside of its borders to fight under the code, rowed across the river and met on Tybee Island. The sand of this island beach, close by the lighthouse or the old Martello tower, soaked up the blood of many wounded Carolinians in the long period during which the code held dominion over men's minds. It was no uncommon thing for boats to draw up at the upper end of the island and discharge their human cargoes of principals, seconds, surgeons and friends. A few minutes walk brought them to the long stretch of beach that at that time extended far out into the ocean, the beach of to-day, old citizens say, being but a shadow of what it was a half century ago. There, with no fear of disturbance, the twenty or thirty paces were stepped off, the principals placed in position, and the shots exchanged that were necessary to preserve a sense of personal dignity and honor. The keeper of the light house was the sole Georgia witness of many encounters of this sort. If wounded, the unfortunate duellist was given attention as he lay on the beach, and then placed comfortably as possible in his boat, and the negro slaves pulled lustily away at the oars to return him to home and loved ones. If killed, as doubtless1 some were, although the records of these meetings are not to be had in Savannah, the stiffening corpse was a pitiable object as it lay covered in the bottom of the boat, gazed at by sorrowing friends on the long journey across the water to the shore from whence he had come an hour or two before in the full vigor of glorious manhood. Georgia did not prosecute these visitors from a sister state, nor even seek their extradition. As for Savannahians, Tybee Island was too inconvenient of access and the memories of living men, and the written or printed records, make scant allusions to meetings' there. Sometime before the war Col. William R. Pritchard and Mr. Stoney met behind the Martello Tower, a picturesque feature of the island removed some years ago, and fired at each other one time in a final adjustment of some personal difficulty. The bullet grazed Stoney's leg, it is said, a mere flesh wound, and his adversary escaped without injury. It was always much easier to row across to Screven Ferry, S. C., or to visit one of the plantations near the city, than to take the long trip to Tybee, so no stories of Savannah duels cluster around the long stretch of sand from Lazaretto creek to the Inlet. In 1834 there was but one duel and that, the report showed, was without serious injury to the parties. It was "so silently conducted that the Standing Committee had not an opportunity to take the customary measures." Three affairs of honor, though, came to its attention in 1835, in one of which, one of the saddest in the story of duelling in Savannah, a young man of prominence met his death. This was the meeting between James Morrison and Samuel Stiles on July 7. Thomas Bourke was second for Morrison, while Stiles' brother acted in that capacity for him. The news of the proposed duel came to Secretary Bee at night. It was impossible for him to get the Standing Committee together at once to exert its influence so he assumed the initiative and swore out warrants for the principals and made arrangements for the committee to act later. Morrison and Stiles were arrested and held to bail. "The chairman of the Standing Committee assisted by Judge Law, Major Fannin, John W. Anderson and the secretary used every effort to reconcile the parties and prevent the duel, but all in vain." "The seconds would listen to no proposals, not even admit that they were acting as such." Of the resulting tragedy Secretary Bee wrote in his report: "On Tuesday morning, the 7th July, these deluded young men, with all the feelings which false notions of honor and their own bad passions could excite, and in disregard of all laws, whether human or divine, crossed the Savannah river and fought on the South Carolina shore. Stiles was shot through the body at the first fire and died on Wednesday morning, the 8th July." In the trouble between Charles Rossignol and G. Gue-rard, soon after, the committee "happily accomplished its purpose." Three months later, in October, it once more exerted itself successfully, this time to prevent two of the city's leading men, Thomas Bourke and Dr. Richard D. Arnold, from exchanging shots. The minutes set forth the adjustment of this affair of honor in this fashion: "Savannah, October 1, 1836. "The Standing Committee being informed some days since that a challenge to fight a Duel had been given by Mr. Thomas Bourke and accepted by Dr. Richard D. Arnold; after many fruitless personal efforts to reconcile the parties, resolved to address an official letter to the seconds, requesting their consent to entrust the affair to the decision of disinterested gentlemen, not members of the Association. This resolution was carried into effect, but did not answer the desired end. The committee then resolved to make one more effort to prevent A FASHIONABLE MURDER, and having obtained the co-operation of Messers. George Schley, W. T. Williams and James Hunter, again urged a reconciliation upon the seconds, who finally agreed to leave the matter with friends of their own selection. This was done, and the quarrel was settled in a manner honorable to both parties." In 1836, the minutes tell us, there "was no duel fought in the vicinity of this place." In 1837, "not one instance of a duel had occurred within the jurisdiction of this Association, nor any case requiring its interposition, plainly setting forth the fact that this degrading relic of barbarism has fallen into disrepute and almost into disuse." With this year the minutes cease but subsequent years showed that the secretary's happiness in prophesying the downfall of the code was1 premature and without foundation. The Association itself was quite evidently losing its force and its standing. It seemed to find it impossible to secure an orator after this year, its attendance and membership dwindled, and apparently it soon became almost moribund. For ten years, though, it had served a useful purpose and perhaps saved several lives by its interposition in prospective duels as well as by its agitation against the practice. Included in the membership of the Association during its life were over sixty men of local prominence, including Daniel E. Adams, George W. Anderson, Richard D. Arnold, William M. Baker. Anthony Barclay, Timothy Barnard, William Bee, Horace Blair, B. Bourquin, E. Bourquin, R. C. Brown, James S. Bulloch, William B. Bulloch, Rev. Benjamin Burroughs, Rev. Abiel Carter, S. T. Chapman, Moses Cleland, George W. Coe, William Crabtree, Jr., George B. Gumming, Dr. John Gumming, Joseph Gumming, Judge William Davies, Raymond P. Demere, Jacob D'Lamotta, Abram B. Fannin, Elias Fort, Joseph George, Robert Habersham, Richard Habersham, Martin Hathaway, William Hotchkin, Rev. Samuel B. Howe, Patrick Houstoun, Joseph W. Jackson, Dr. George Jones, William King, R. King, Dwight Lathrop, Judge William Law, A. O'Lyon, Matthew Hall McAllister, Joseph S. Pelot, Almond Price, Dr. James Bond Read, J. B. Richmond, Charles W. Rockwell, Charles Rossignol, Jacob Shaffer, Frances Sorrell, Archibald Smith, William H. Smith, Benjamin Edward Stiles, William H. Stiles, Joseph Stokes, Alexander Telfair, James M. Wayne, George White, Richard F. Williams, Stephen L. Williams, William H. Williams, Rev. H. 0. Wyer, Thomas Young. Robert Barnwell, of Beaufort, S. C., was also a member. Before the Anti-Duelling Association ceased its efforts to suppress duelling by the force of an awakened adverse public opinion, one of the leaders of its Standing Committee, Benjamin Edwards Stiles, had his principles put to a severe test. This was in 1844, at a time when political opinions in Savannah were strongly aroused and the town was divided into two hostile camps of almost equal strength. President John Tyler had appointed Gen. Edward Harden Collector of the Port, but the impression got abroad, perhaps designedly, that he would not accept the office, although the appointment had been confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Stiles began circulating a petition for the appointment of William B. Bulloch as Collector and sought among others the signatures of Joseph Fay and his partner, Edward Padelf ord. A letter appeared in the "Republican" attacking Stiles as "Seeking to forward his ends by injuring the Hon. J. M. Berrien." The editor of the "Republican" refused to furnish the name of the author unless Mr. Stiles "Intended to prosecute or procure personal satisfaction." Stiles replied that he was well known to be a member of the Anti-Duelling Association, and "he had never been governed by the laws of etiquette but by his own dictates of right and wrong," and "what his action would be would depend on circumstances." Fay's name was furnished and an acrimonious correspondence resulted, a final letter being written by Fay on board the vessel on which he was leaving for the North. On his return to the city Stiles assaulted him at South Broad and Bull streets, using a cane. Fay grasped the cane, others interfered, and Fay sent Stiles a challenge which Stiles "felt constrained to refuse." "He cannot drive me from the principles which I profess into that school of honor which supposes that an improper or base act can be cancelled by the flash of a pistol or the glitter of a sword," wrote the Anti-Duelling committeeman. "Mr. Fay makes upon my character a wanton and slanderous attack and then refers me for reparation to the law or a duel. . . He has appealed to the public, and there I am content to leave the matter, holding in my hands the proof of the falsity of his- charge and the propriety of my own conduct. I cheerfully submit to that tribunal the decision of the question raised, whether my opposition upon principle to duelling should deprive me of the right to chastise insolence or to defend my character or person when assailed." Fay charged that Stiles was shielding himself behind his position as a member of the Anti-Duelling Association. "The surprise which should properly arise will be that he, professing the principles under which he now shelters himself, could so far forget their obligations as to make an attack upon a defenceless man, and so quickly recollect them when necessary to shield him from the consequences of such ungallant and unworthy conduct . . . I pronounce his position to be that of a poltroon and the refuge of a coward." The correspondence, together with a number of corrobatory letters from citizens, was published, but no further personal assaults and no duel resulted. Stiles' stood fast to his position in antagonism to the "Code Duello." Judge Law took a great interest in the Association and its work. He served on its committee of conciliation for ten years. He was popular with the people and admired for his sterling character. The Grand Jury, in 1830, in referring to his election, stated that "No choice of the legislature could have been more acceptable to the people, as none could have afforded a surer guarantee that justice would be ably, promptly and impartially administered." There is no incident in the story of duelling, though, which shows more clearly its unmistakable hold on the popular mind, or its' appeal to the individual whose sense of propriety had been grossly violated, than that of many years later when Law, no longer a judge but a highly honored member of society and of the bar, had recourse to it. No other incident likewise shows more strikingly the pressure of opinion forcing an offending party to make an honorable amende for his misconduct. In this instance Judge Law felt called upon to resent an affront upon his professional and personal character made in the court room in the hearing of a case. Law was a man of purity of life and a keen sense of honor, and much loved by the lawyers as a class for his uprightness, sincerity and unvarying courtesy. One day an attorney gratuitously intimated that Law was unfair in his conduct of a ease, somewhat offensive inferences being easily drawn from his comments. Those were days when mere angry recriminations could not satisfy the sense of injury from a reflection upon one's official or private character. Law, after court adjourned, called on the offender for an absolute apology, in failure of which he would require him to meet him on the duelling ground. The lawyer at first was obdurate and declined to withdraw his remarks in open court as demanded, so the challenge was passed and accepted. The duel was to be fought on Monday. On Sunday Law, who was an elder in his church, attended services and partook of communion. Monday he was ready for the exchange of shots that might mean his death. But the other members of the bar, outraged by the conduct of the offending lawyer, intimated so plainly to him that his refusal to apologize and thereby force the former judge to a duel would mean professional and social ostracism, that the culprit changed his attitude and when court convened begged Law's pardon and withdrew his offensive strictures. Law accepted the apology and it is said never thereafter showed the slightest animosity toward the lawyer in question. Years later there was another stirring episode in the life of this noted Savannahian. It was at the time when the North and the South were preparing for civil warfare. The secession movement in Georgia had been strongly combatted. In Savannah the old Union party had been very powerful in the days when South Carolina was leading the first secession movement and had remained a factor of prominence in the political life of the community for many years thereafter. Those in favor of breaking the ties that bound the sections together and establishing a separate Southern confederacy were in the great majority and the spirit of enthusiasm for the new cause was swelling daily. The State had not yet withdrawn formally from the constitutional compact of the Union when a great gathering of the citizens of Savannah was held to consider the situation and determine its action. The meeting was called at the Masonic Hall, at the northeast corner of Bull and Broughton streets, afterwards for many years the home of the Oglethorpe Club, and now occupied by the Savannah Board of Trade. Hundreds crowded into the spacious hall, while thousands filled the streets surrounding the building. From the stage within and the veranda without the orators —and Savannah then did not lack men of high eloquence— awakened tumultuous applause by their pictures of the South's grievances and of the brilliant future that awaited it in a Confederacy solely of its own creation and control. It was a secession audience in the main, but it was felt and known that there were yet many who grieved over the seeming necessity of dissolving the Union for which their forefathers had fought, and who perhaps were not yet convinced that it was inevitable. At such a crisis an appeal from one who had been a pronounced Union man, and who enjoyed the esteem and confidence of all, was calculated to weigh the balances solidly in favor of secession, and the venerable Judge Law was called upon to speak in favor of the resolutions endorsing the adoption of a secession ordinance by the State convention. Miss Adelaide Wilson has told of the historic incident with so much forceful charm that it may well be repeated in her language: "Introduced by Francis S. Bartow, he came to the front of the platform, his white hair and feeble step contrasting strangely with the stamp of intense purpose in every lineament of his face and the fire of his eye. In few words he sketched the wrongs of his section, and the unavailing effort that had been made to right them, and then, concluding: " 'Therefore,' he said, with a sweep of his arm, that smote upon the hearts of his hearers like the grasp of a hand upon the strings of a harp,—Therefore, as a Southern man, I give to these resolutions my absolute and unqualified approval.' "The effect upon the meeting was electrical; in an instant every man was on his feet, every hat in the air, while a great shout went up that was like the roar of a tornado. Some sprang to the windows crying to the crowd in the street, 'Judge Law has indorsed the resolutions,' and then cheer answered to cheer from those within to those without, until exhaustion brought comparative quiet. The resolutions were carried by acclamation." One is loth to turn away from these old Savannah worthies of a half century ago. Judge Law looms in another momentous incident before the curtain fell upon his earthly career. It was in 1866. An Act of Congress provided, in effect, that before Southern lawyers could resume practice in the Federal courts, or be admitted to practice therein, they must by the most searching oaths, purge themselves of kinship with the cause of their section in the war recently closed. To Judge Law fell the duty of resisting such a barrier to men of honor resuming their professional activities. He sought on motion to be permitted to continue practice in the United States Court at Savannah, in which he had practiced forty-nine years, without taking the lawyer's test oath, as it was called. In defense of his right to do so he made a notable argument before Judge Erskine, pointing out that he had taken the oath of allegiance to the Union under the amnesty proclamation of President Johnson, that this carried a full pardon with it, that the test oath was an ex post facto law inflicting pains and penalties illegally and in violation of the Federal constitution, and that it was therefore void. Ex-Governor Joseph E. Brown appeared with him and also dissected the offending law in its relation to the constitution. Henry S. Fitch, United States1 District Attorney, vigorously opposed the motion. Even though he assailed the right of Judge Law to practice without taking the test oath, he did not refrain from paying him a tribute that to-day recalls the high position he held in the esteem of all who knew him. Said he: "The pro-movent in this instance is one of those rare old gentlemen who through all the trials and vicissitudes of half a century of professional labor has, wherever known, commanded admiration for his legal lore and honor for his private virtues." Fitch's argument was characterized by Judge Erskine as of unusual scholarship and brilliancy, but the judge held, nevertheless, that the Act imposing the oath was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and under his opinion Judge Law was not required to take and subscribe the oath. Not long after, in a similar case from another State, the United States Supreme Court likewise decreed the obnoxious statute unconstitutional. To Judge Law belongs the honor of assuming an unflinching attitude of stalwart opposition to the test oath and of willingness to incur the penalties of an unalterable refusal to obey the drastic provisions of a statute passed by the extreme radicals in Congress to degrade and punish the lawyers of the South. The ante-bellum period is sometimes referred to as "The Giant Days of Georgia." New occasions and new duties show forth the same crop of virile men. Haloed by distance, the generations' that have passed from the scene of action may seem greater in the attributes of glorious manhood, but if we recall the spirit and the scenes of 1917-18 we may glimpse that a half century from now the feeling with reference to Savannah men and women of this generation will be the same with which we now look upon those who illustrated Georgia in the eras that have become the province of the historian. Additional Comments: From: ANNALS OF SAVANNAH SAVANNAH DUELS AND DUELLISTS 1733-1877 BY Thomas Gamble COPYRIGHT 1923 REVIEW PUBLISHING & PRINTING COMPANY SAVANNAH, GEORGIA File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/chatham/history/other/gms417savannah.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/ File size: 43.8 Kb