Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter XIX 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 26, 2004, 11:08 pm

CHAPTER XIX 

SOME SAVANNAH COURTS OF HONOR

HOW THEY INTERVENED AND BROUGHT PEACE BETWEEN IRATE INDIVIDUALS BENT ON HOSTILE
MEETINGS— THE DAVENPORT-LATHROP AND JOHNSTON-WETTER MEETINGS—PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE CODE RELATIVE TO DUELLING—NEWSPAPER RIDICULE OF BOMBASTIC AGGRESSORS—THE
"ROARING LION" OF LIBERTY AND WAY—TROUBLE BETWEEN HONE AND DAVIDSON, WARING AND
ANDERSON, WARING AND LEVY—HOW THE DANCY-OWENS AFFAIR WAS HANDLED—HAYES AND
HUNTER CHECKED BY WARRANT. THE TOMPKINS-RUCKER TROUBLE ADJUSTED ON THE
FIELD—SAVANNAH REPRESENTED AT THE LAST DUEL BETWEEN GEORGIANS, THE
CALHOUN-WILLIAMSON MEETING.

    After the meeting between Cohen and Aiken the prewar public mentality as far
as duelling goes seems to have begun to undergo a persistent change, and
whatever elements of approval of the practice still lingered disappeared after a
few years.

    In this early post-bellum period was the bloodless duel between Benjamin R.
Davenport and James W. Lathrop, Jr. Tradition has it that this di>l grew out of
a quarrel at a military dance over a trivial cause. Both of the young men were
officers in the Johnston Light Infantry, of which S. Yates Levy, once a
well-known figure in Savannah's legal and literary circles, was captain. Levy
was recognized as an authority on the "Code" and figured in an advisory capacity
in several affairs of honor, but what part he played in the trouble between his
fellow officers of the militia company is not remembered. As befitting military
young men of high temper, the difference, no matter how slight the reason
therefor, must necessarily be adjusted with bullets.

    Dr. John M. Johnston acted as second for Davenport, with Robert L. Mercer
serving in that capacity for Lathrop. The surgeons were Dr. Benjamin S. Purse
for Davenport and Dr. John D. Fish for Lathrop. Dr. Read's place was selected as
the meeting spot. This old Brampton plantation, originally the home of Jonathan
Bryan, friend and co-laborer with Oglethorpe, had been for some years a favorite
resort for Savannah duellists. Long before daybreak the seconds called for their
principals and surgeons and all were on the ground by 5 a. m., there to await
the dawn that would permit of the exchange of shots. The early start was made to
prevent interference by the county officers, who, under the pressure of public
opinion, had recently become quite vigilant in their efforts to enforce the laws
against duelling.

    As the parties gathered at the spot selected, Dr. Purse said to Dr. Fish:

    "This matter ought to be adjusted; there is no sense in these boys shooting
at each other. One of them may get hit."

    Dr. Fish laughed. "Don't worry," said he. "I've been to ten duels, and I
never saw any one hurt yet. You and I might as well have left our surgical
instruments at home."

    Dr. Fish's prediction, based on past experiences, proved well founded.
Stationing the principals twenty paces apart, the usual preliminaries were
carried out. At the signal to fire, Lathrop quickly pulled the trigger, sending
the bullet over Davenport's head, and Davenport, appreciating this, aimed at the
ground between him and his opponent.

    Then the seconds performed their functions as arbitrators, the young men
were, without reluctance, induced to shake hands and let bygones be bygones.

    "They were a much relieved pair of boys," said Dr. Purse, forty-five years
later, "and I was a much relieved surgeon, as I knew both families and disliked
more than I can express ft the idea of taking one or the other of the young men
home wounded or dead. But Dr. Fish was right in his diagnosis. Duelling,
generally speaking, had become rather a harmless sort of affair."

    An amusing incident is told in connection with this duel. The sister of
Davenport, afterwards Mrs. William Harden, was a teacher at the time. To her
school room there came that morning a visitor, a Northern woman then
investigating educational methods in Savannah. She had heard of the duel, but
did not know the principals, and was eager to condemn the custom and the parties
thereto.

    "Have you heard that two young men are to fight a duel today?" asked she.

    "Yes."

    "It is a crime," said the Northern woman, with much heat. "They should both
be imprisoned. Don't you think so?"

    "Hardly, as one of them is my brother."

    "Oh, what have I said ? I beg your pardon a thousand times."

    "Never mind. He came a few minutes ago to tell me that neither was wounded.
They are friends now."

    The visitor probably never understood the psychology of duelling, but
thereafter she did understand that it was perhaps best to know the parties
thereto before discussing them with acquaintances.

    A little later trouble was that between Capt. Augustus P. Wetter, a
well-known architect, and Capt. James H. Johnston, a gallant Confederate
soldier, for many years superintendent of the Savannah street car lines. Both
are well remembered by many Savannahians of today. R. Alexander Wayne, prominent
merchant, was to act as second for Johnston, with Capt. Michael Cash, one of the
city's leading contractors of that day, doing the honors for Wetter.

    Dr. Purse was requested the day before the meeting to be in the vicinity of
Causton Bluff the following day at noon, as "There might be a call for his
services." Much secrecy was necessary, the sheriff being on the alert to arrest
all parties concerned in the widely discussed prospective duel. At noon, Dr.
Purse, surgical case in buggy, was maneuvering around the Bluff to find where
his services were needed, when a buggy came dashing up and lawyers N. Calvin
Collier and R. R. Richards alighted and began to question him. The first thought
was that they had warrants to arrest all parties involved, but assurances were
quickly given that they had come to act as friends of Capt. Johnston in place of
Wayne. Collier fired a pistol in the air to attract the other parties to the
spot, but some time elapsed before another buggy was seen coming along the
weed-grown road as fast as a thoroughbred could bring it. Out of it jumped
Wetter and Cash. After a long wait, with the other principal not appearing, the
party separated, and made their way back to town by different routes, there to
find that Capt. Johnston had been kept away from the Bluff by the sight of
deputy sheriffs in that vicinity.

    It was then necessary to get new seconds and surgeons to avoid detection and
the next day and the day thereafter the principals, who had been under cover,
got out of the city and to Wilmington Island. There their differences were
considered at length by friends and finally a satisfactory adjustment was
reached without the use of the firearms provided. The "Morning News" made but a
brief mention of the affair, although the entire city had been discussing it for
four or five days, and the sole question when men met was "Have you heard from
the Johnston-Wetter duel?" Here is the published account of how the doves of
peace figuratively perched on the duelling pistols and cooed affectionately to
each other:

    "The affair of honor which has been the subject of intense interest in the
city for several days was satisfactorily settled yesterday. The challenged party
went to Wilmington Island on Wednesday morning and the other party arrived on.
the ground late yesterday morning, the meeting having been delayed through the
efforts of the officers of the law to arrest the principals. The amicable
settlement of the affair has been a subject of congratulation among the friends
of both parties."

    At this time the laws of Georgia relative to duelling were specific and
sufficiently severe, if enforced, to make participation in such an encounter
fraught possibly with very unpleasant consequences to all involved, although as
a matter of fact no one was ever punished. Under the State Code of 1873, sending
or accepting a challenge made one liable to a fine of $500 and imprisonment in
the county jail for not exceeding six months, or, if the jury so recommended,
the imprisonment could be made in the penitentiary, with hard labor, for not
less than one year nor longer than two years. The seconds were subject to the
same penalties as the principals. If a duel were actually fought, the principals
were guilty of "high misdemeanor" and on conviction were punishable by
imprisonment with labor in the penitentiary for not less than four nor more than
eight years. If death should ensue from a duel, "all parties, both principals
and seconds," were held to be guilty of murder, and on conviction were to suffer
the death penalty unless such sentence was commuted.

    Any justice or other public peace officer, having knowledge of the intention
to fight a duel, and who "should not use and exert his official authority to
arrest the parties and prevent the duel," was punishable on conviction with
dismissal from office. Any person sending or accepting a challenge, or aiding or
abetting a duel, was to be disfranchised and debarred from voting or holding
office, in addition to being subject to the other penalties imposed by law. The
State Code also provided that any person who in a newspaper or handbill, written
or printed, published any other person as a coward, or used any other
opprobrious or abusive language for not accepting a challenge or fighting a
duel, should be, on conviction, fined $1,000 and imprisoned not to exceed six
months, to work on the chain-gang not to exceed twelve months, any one or more
in the discretion of the court. The printer or publisher was likewise made a
witness in such cases, and if he refused to divulge the writer of the card, he
was to be considered as the author and punished as such and also held in
contempt of court.

    Similar provisions are found in the Code of 1861, except that posting or
publishing a man with opprobrious epithets brought a fine of $500 and a jail
sentence not exceeding sixty days. As far back as the Code of 1817 penalties
covering all these features of duelling are to be found. The legislators had
done their best toward breaking up the practice, but the public sentiment to
sustain the laws had not heretofore existed. The increasing disposition to
enforce the statutes, and the greater likelihood of juries refusing to longer
look indulgently on those resorting to the "Code Duello" explain the exertions,
or apparent exertions, of the various public peace officers in Chatham to do
their duty and the necessity for Savannah duellists and their companions
covering their movements with the veil of secrecy.

    In the years that followed the Civil War a tendency became apparent to
ridicule duels which were the topic of widespread talk but failed to materialize
into definite action, or where there were ludicrous features that lent
themselves to the shafts of raillery. W. T. Thompson, author of "Major Jones'
Courtship" and other stories of Georgia life, was editor of the "Morning News,"
with Joel Chandler Harris, of later "Uncle Remus" fame, as his associate. While
they kept their humor within bounds, they occasionally made a duel that fell
cold and flat the subject of ironical comments that perhaps pierced the hides of
bellicose individuals, even if a mutual exchange of bullets did not. Here is one
of the "News" thrusts at a still-born affair of honor in 1872:

    "ANOTHER DUEL FIASCO: Late Thursday night, a certain young gentleman of this
city, representing one of the First Families of Virginia, visited one of our
leading hotels, became offended at one of the clerks, and threw him his card, at
the same time asking if he knew what that meant. The clerk, without hesitation,
replied that he did and would be ready to receive any communication which the
Virginian might send through a third party. The consequence was that yesterday
the second of the Virginian called on the second of the Canadian and assured him
that he meant. business—that his gentleman would exhibit no white feathers. The
clerk's second responded very much in the same spirit and claimed the choice of
weapons, when it was arranged that, in a quiet kind of place, the affair of
honor would be settled this morning to the satisfaction of all parties. About
half past two o'clock yesterday afternoon the friends of the Virginian
apologized for their friend—and from the popping of pistols the sound was
changed to the popping of corks."

    Again, the same year, when two Liberty countyites fell out about politics
and one slapped the other's face. Harris— or it may have been Thompson—made
subsequent developments the occasion for a picture that must have intensely
amused the people of Liberty, at least. The political attitude of the challenger
had doubtless put him outside the pale of public sympathy and invited the
satirical pen.

    After some persiflage describing the entry of the armed and irate colonel
from Liberty into Savannah, the "News" treated the incident with more levity
than would have been tolerated a decade or two before. The writer evidently
enjoyed what he was penning:

    "Some time ago a controversy sprang up between Mr. Walter A. Way, of
Tebeauville, Liberty County, and Colonel Wm. B. Gaulden, sometimes known as the
'Roaring Lion of Liberty,' in regard to the expulsion of the latter from the
Democratic committee in consequence of his announcement as an independent
candidate for Senator, in opposition to the regular nominee of the party.
Several communications were published in one of the city papers, in which they
handled each other without gloves. It was supposed that the offensive remarks
would result in a difficulty, but nothing wag heard of it until a few days
since, when it is reported that Mr. Way met Colonel Gaulden in Hinesville and
slapped his face.

    "The gallant colonel, who, it seems, possessed wonderful control over his
temper, did not resent the insult at the time, but intimated his intention to
appeal to the code of honor. In pursuance of this determination, he endeavored
to obtain a second, but was unsuccessful, and was compelled to send a challenge
to Mr. Way by a particular friend of the latter, who only carried it as a favor
and with the understanding that he had nothing to do with the affair. Mr. Way,
it is stated, read the challenge, filed it away, and took no further notice of
it. The colonel, it seems, concluded, or expressed the belief, that the
challenged party would meet him at the appointed place, Screven Ferry, on the
South Carolina side of the river.

    "During Saturday morning he hunted round Savannah for a second and asked two
gentlemen to act in that capacity for him, but both declined the honor. The
colonel, who had his spirit up, gave out the impression that Mr. Way was in town
and that he was hunting for him. The gentleman was not here, it seems, and after
spending a fruitless day on the war path, with his rifle as company, Colonel
Gaulden left with an acquaintance for Screven Ferry in the afternoon, concluding
that as his enemy was not in the city he had gone over to the Ferry and was
awaiting him. On his arrival at the grounds the savagerous colonel hunted
around, but no game worthy of his mammoth rifle offered, and disappointed he
returned to the city. The report that Mr. Way had sent a challenge to Colonel
Gaulden, we are informed, is untrue; that face slapping proceeding was the
extent of his code. The colonel with his trusty rifle left for home on the 7
o'clock train. We learn that, in a brief conversation with the party who checked
his rifle, he stated that he had been over to Screven Ferry to meet a man but
that he was not there. The colonel expressed gratification at his absence,
saying 'If he had been there, I would have killed him, and I am glad he kept out
of the way.' So this wild hunt for gore resulted in a grand fiasco, and the
colonel will probably live to fight many more such duels."

    In this incident, even though the "Colonel" had made himself a legitimate
butt for ridicule, there is an intimation that the code duello was falling from
its former high estate, that a change in the tone and standards of life in this
section was doing for it what Cervantes did for a ludicrously degenerated
chivalry in his Don Quixote, making it the target of satire and jeering laughter
when occasion offered, against which no custom, no matter how time-honored,
could long continue to exist.

    Tradition throws a somewhat different light on this incident. Many a better
man than "Colonel" Gaulden has been forgotten by Liberty countyites, but
reminiscences of that obstreperous and somewhat picturesque character survive.
The living who still recall him describe the "Roaring Lion" as fully seven feet
tall, straight as an Indian, of a darK, swarthy complexion, with high cheek
bones. Overbearing and dictatorial to those whom he thought he could insult with
impunity, he persistently resorted to bulldozing tactics in his court practice.
Without finished culture, or refinement either of feeling or in conduct, he was
nevertheless a born lawyer. Wrote a former prominent Liberty County attorney to me:

    "He was powerful as an advocate and it was rarely he lost a case before a
jury. His success was due entirely to his strong- natural abilities in
cross-examination and as a pleader and to his unscrupulous use of them. He lived
about three miles from Hinesville for years and had considerable practice in the
courts there. On the trial of a case there he crossed swords with Way, who had
bitterly attacked his desertion of the Democratic party and claims of old
allegiance in sentiment to the Republicans. During the argument Gaulden used
language personally offensive to Way, who, without hesitation, vigorously
slapped his face in open court.

    "The court habitues expected a personal difficulty immediately after
adjournment, but Gaulden appeared to avoid it. Later he challenged Way, who
accepted it, the duel to be fought in South Carolina. Way, though, was soon
after arrested on a warrant issued, it was reported, at the instance of Gaulden
through a friend, and in this way deprived of the opportunity to meet Gaulden.
It was then that the 'Roaring Lion/ 'armed like an arsenal,' traveled to
Savannah and across to the Ferry, and returning boasted of 'having backed Way
down'."

    The war records of the two men illuminated their varying types. Way
volunteered at the beginning in the famous old Liberty Independent Troop and
served throughout the war, mostly in Virginia. During part of the war he was in
the command under Colonel Pierce M. B. Young, afterwards brigadier-general, and
took part in a famous charge under that gallant officer. On that occasion Young
volunteered to charge with his command across a bridge, heavily protected by
Federals, and take the enemy's guns which were playing havoc with the
Confederates. The charge was lead by Young, it is said, with the exclamation,
"Follow me, boys. Here's to hell or a brigadier-generalship." The guns were
captured and Young was promoted. At this and other times Way displayed cool
courage to such an extent as to win the admiration of his comrades. Gaulden, on
the other hand, is stated never to have smelled powder except at a Savannah
review. Soon after hostilities began he secured permission from Governor Brown
to organize a regiment, of which he was to be colonel, and advertised in the
"Morning News" and other papers for "patriotic Georgians" to enlist in it. The
responses were evidently not flattering to Gaulden's pride. Three years later,
when Sherman was marching on Savannah, he made a further abortive effort, it is
stated, and perhaps got together a semblance of an organization and assumed the
title of "Colonel." "If any one under Gaulden ever fired a gun at the enemy, no
Liberty County citizen recalls it," is the emphatic declaration of one
acquainted with Liberty's history. His war record and his duelling record appear
to have been along parallel lines.

    Gaulden, as did some others, became a vociferous "Loyal Citizen" as soon as
the war was over. He had been a member of the Baltimore convention and had
supported Douglass there. In a speech at Savannah, in May, 1865, he declared
that when secession was advocated he had sought to "bring the people to their
senses out of their frenzy and madness," and denounced the organizers of the
secession movement as "traitors to constitutional liberty," and laid at their
doors the "responsibility of the widows' tears and the orphans' cries." He hoped
the Georgia Union Club would "succeed in keeping down the leading traitors, but
still guard themselves against malignant feeling." He is a striking illustration
of those who, born and reared in the South and professing devotion and adherence
to the Confederacy, quickly veered and won for themselves the title by which
they will always be .known—"scalawags."

    The number of duels actually fought does not indicate or approach the number
of local difficulties of a grave nature which arose during the last years in
which the code was recognized and followed in Savannah, but which were happily
disposed of by wise and cool counsellors. On many occasions, without publicity,
differences which might otherwise have progressed to an impasse, only to be
broken by recourse to pistols, were quickly and satisfactorily handled by
committees or courts of friends. At other times the correspondence and ruling of
the "Court of Honor" were published for the protection of the principals who
regarded themselves as standing before the bar of public opinion and public
judgment.

    "Commodore" William Hone is still remembered by many Savannahians. Few
recall, though, that fifty-two years ago he was challenged by William M.
Davidson, another well-known citizen of that period, as a result of an
unpleasant personal allusion Hone had made at a public sale at the custom house.

    Both were wholesalers of liquors, jealous as to business supremacy in their
line. The trouble grew out of an importation of fine French brandy Hone had
made. Until Bimini and the swamps of Bryan County became the chief sources of
its supplies, Savannah prided itself on the quality of liquors it imbibed.
"Commodore" Hone selected his importations with the greatest care and entering
them directly through the custom house took no chances of substitutions en route.

    In this particular instance a barrel of extra-quality brandy was found sadly
depleted in contents when Hone called for it. Either it had leaked out on its
way across the Atlantic or the "Carpetbag" collector had looked elsewhere while
his "Black Republican" minions in the granite building on the Bay sucked
twenty-six gallons through a crack in the bung. Hone properly refused to pay
duty on fifty gallons and the government ordered the barrel and its contents
confiscated and sold.

    When the deputy called for bids Hone made a public statement of the facts,
from his standpoint, and bid $1 a gallon. Much to his disgust and anger, his
rival, Davidson, bid $4 and the brandy was knocked down to him. It was then that
the "Commodore" indulged in language more heated than polite.

    The inevitable demand for a retraction came. Hone declined to give it. Under
the circumstances, he maintained, "No proper thinking person would have bid
against me without intending to show a marked hostility to me." Davidson
disclaimed any intention to injure Hone by his action at the sale and authorized
his friend, Major A. Bonaud, to make all the necessary arrangements for a
meeting under the code.

    Before plans could be perfected, Henry Brigham and Edward J. Harden
intervened and suggested General Robert H. Anderson, General W. W. Kirkland and
G. B. Lamar, Jr., as referees. These gentlemen wrote the principals: "Before
accepting so delicate a responsibility we beg to know if you are willing to bind
yourselves to abide our decision."

    Both agreed to this, the challenge was withdrawn, and the correspondence and
statements of facts were turned over to the committee. The referees ruled:

    "In our opinion the act complained of by Mr. Hone did not warrant his
insulting language. It was at best only ungenerous. Our decision is that Mr.
Hone should retract his offensive language and Mr. Davidson express his regrets
at the unintentional injury complained of by Mr. Hone."

    In this case, as in others, the referees found a way of appeasing the wrath
of both principals. No matter how apparently unfavorable the prospects when they
began their labors of love, they inevitably found some "Balm in Gilead" to apply
to the rasped feelings of honor. No principal ever seems to have been entirely
in the right or hopelessly in the wrong.

    The committee of conciliation, or Court of Honor, of which glimpses are seen
in the proceedings of the Anti-Duelling Association, came very much into
evidence in the last years of duelling. Probably the most distinguished of these
boards of referees that ever investigated and satisfactorily disposed of a
serious trouble between Savannahians was that which, early in 1876, intervened
between Robert R. Dancy and George W. Owens. The procedure in this instance was
similar to that in other cases not so well remembered, or the details of which
have not been preserved. It illuminates the manner in which friends interposed
their good offices and exerted themselves to avoid duels—or, what was worse,
street encounters with pistols.

    The original source of the trouble in this instance lead to Mr. Dancy
applying opprobrious language to Mr. Owens on the street, resulting in the
latter striking Dancy, followed by a physical struggle between the two. Mr.
Dancy immediately challenged Mr. Owens, who replied under date of January 27:

    "I am in receipt of your communication of this date, through the hand of
your friend, Mr. Steele McA. White, in which you say: 'After our meeting of
yesterday I suppose you are prepared to give me the satisfaction due any
gentleman.' In reply, I will say that I always hold myself as a gentleman ready
to exact reparation for an affront offered to me, and to accord proper and due
satisfaction for one extended by me. But under the circumstances, I am convinced
that, after mature reflection, you will consider the occurrence of yesterday no
more than might have been expected by you as a result of the insulting and
opprobrious language used toward me. Having promptly resented it, as any
gentleman would have done, I do not consider that I am called upon in this
matter to answer any presumed claim for satisfaction which you might entertain.
This will be handed you by my friend, Mr. W. H. Daniel."

    News of the difficulty between the two men soon became widespread and
aroused a feeling that efforts should be made to bring about a restoration of
amity. To that end Colonel George A. Mercer, Colonel Charles H. Olmstead and
General Henry R. Jackson intervened as pacificators. In a letter to Messrs.
White and Daniel, they said: "We do not think that the quarrel is of such a
nature as to require mortal combat, but that it is capable of honorable
adjustment. As disinterested parties, and with friendly sentiments to both
principals, we take the liberty of requesting a submission of the matter to such
mutual friends as you may select, and that a reasonable delay be allowed in the
premises."

    The following day Dancy wrote to Owens: "Your note is unsatisfactory.
Amongst gentlemen, Wilson's code of honor, in this community, has long been
considered authority. I refer you to chapter 8, paragraph 2, and I again
peremptorily demand satisfaction at your hands, feeling that you have deeply
aggrieved me. I hope you may prove a generous foe, and not stand upon
technicalities or push me to the final requirements of the code to procure the
satisfaction that is clearly due."

    The rule of the code referred to read: "When words are used and a blow given
in return, the insult is avenged,

and if redress be sought it must be from the person receiving the blow."

    Back came the immediate answer from Owens: "I peremptorily decline to accede
to your presumed claim for satisfaction, fully impressed with the conviction
that my action in doing so is correct and proper under the circumstances."

    Four days had passed since the altercation on the street between the
principals and the situation was regarded as exceedingly grave. At this
juncture, Mr. Robert N. Gourdin, General J. F. Gilmer and General Henry R.
Jackson intervened. A letter signed by them was sent to the representatives of
the principals, Messrs. White and Daniel:

    "Understanding that the unhappy difference between Messrs. R. R. Dancy and
George W. Owens remains unadjusted, and apprehending that it may lead to
consequences which this community would deeply deplore, we respectfully request
that you will submit the same to a committee of gentlemen in whom you have
confidence, that it may, if possible, be settled peaceably and amicably,
consistently with the honor of both. Should you consent to make this reference,
we suggest that the cartel be suspended for forty-eight hours, and the
correspondence, with the matters in controversy, be submitted to the gentlemen
who may be chosen."

    This letter was handed to the friends of the principals by Dr. J. T.
MacFarland.

    W. H. Daniel, in reply, pointed out that the "peremptory challenge of Mr.
Dancy having been renewed, and in the latter instance accompanied also with a
threatened course of action on his part, reassures me in the correctness of the
position assumed. As long as the challenge and accompanying threat of Mr. Dancy
continue in force, Mr. Owens must continue to reserve an affirmative or negative
response to your request."

    Steele McA. White wrote to the voluntary conciliators that he would "suspend
the proceedings I proposed to take for the vindication of my friend, R. R.
Dancy, until 8 o'clock p. m. on Tuesday night, February 1. I regret I cannot
comply with your further request for the suspension of the cartel. It is not in
my power to do so. Mr. Owens having declined it, I hold that none exists."

    The following day Chairman Gourdin wrote to White suggesting that further
proceedings be suspended until the benefit of the counsel of General Joseph E.
Johnston could be had. White accepted this suggestion.

    In this connection it is recalled that General Johnston had been successful
in adjusting several difficulties between gentlemen of Savannah, his patience,
tact, high standing as a soldier and as a Christian gentleman, contributing to
his influence in that direction.

    In one instance, it is told, the principals were unusually hot-headed and
obstinate and the other members of the committee were inclined to throw up their
hands in despair and allow them to settle the trouble on the field.

    General Johnston refused to consent to this.

    "Gentlemen," said he, "remember the Master's words: 'Blessed are the
peacemakers.' Let us persevere."

    The committee continued its work and in the end smoothed out the trouble and
brought a lasting peace between the principals.

    General Johnston accepted the delicate task again in this Dancy-Owens
affair, uniting with General Gilmer, General Jackson and Mr. Gourdin. It was
soon decided that an "obstacle still existed to the committee taking the matter
up, in the threat of posting indulged in by Mr. Dancy in his second challenge.
The non-existence of the challenge because declined is held not to have removed
with it the threat," it was pointed out to White, and it was urged that it be
withdrawn.

    "We ask only what is usual and held to be proper in such cases and feel
confident that you will not hesitate to make the withdrawal."

    White replied that "it was not intended as a threat, but merely indicating
what course we would be compelled to pursue, deprecating, as we did, a street
encounter, and preferring a fair and square fight upon the field." The implied
threat was then formally withdrawn and the suggested reference of the trouble to
the committee of four was accepted by both principals.

    The next day the committee made its award, holding that Mr. Dancy had no
sufficient cause of quarrel and erred in seeking" redress in such a manner as to
cause a street encounter with Mr. Owens.

    "Nevertheless," held the committee, "in view of all the circumstances, his
honor as a gentleman has been fully vindicated by his course of action and
nothing further upon his part is required by any code of honor."

    The course of Mr. Owens "commanded the full approbation" of the committee,
who "saw nothing to prevent the existence of friendly relations between these
gentlemen."

    The award was signed by the entire committee, Robert N. Gourdin, J. F.
Gilmer, Henry R. Jackson, Joseph E. Johnston, four of the most prominent men in
Georgia at that period, and published for the information of the public that had
been for nearly two weeks discussing the matter and awaiting the final issue.

    Seven months before this, in June, 1875, a committee on which two of the
same former Confederate generals— Johnston and Gilmer—served together with a
third, Gen. A. R. Lawton, brought to a peaceful settlement the difficulty
between two well-known young commission merchants, C. C. Hardwick and Robert Wayne.

    This grew out of a quarrel at the sale of pools on the races of the Regatta
Association of Georgia. Blows were struck, a physician and a lawyer were secured
as seconds, and events rapidly drew toward a hostile meeting. News spread abroad
and came to Magistrate Elsinger, who, mindful of the law which made him
removable from office if he failed to attempt to stop a duel, issued warrants
for principals and seconds. One principal got across the river, the other and
the seconds were taken into custody. At the hearing Solicitor General Law
represented the majesty of the State, while William U. Garrard represented the
principal under arrest and R. R. Richards the seconds. The defendants were all
discharged and arrangements for a duel proceeded. It was then that the committee
came into being and succeeded in conciliating the principals and adjusting the
matter in accordance with the code.

    Those in position to know say that probably in no other community did the
old leaders of the hosts of the Confederacy do such magnificently effective work
in restoring peaceful relations between men intent on duelling as was
accomplished by those who for many years after the war were the most honored and
beloved of Savannahians. Men naturally turned to them for the settlement of the
grave questions of personal honor and courage involved in such disputes, and
apparently they never failed to hold the headstrong in check until, by careful
hearing of the facts and a conscientious consideration of the positions of the
principals, they could speak without bias or prejudice, do justice to each, and,
by awards that were manifestly based on truth and justice and friendship for
both, persuade them to lay aside the duelling pistols and re-establish amicable,
if not cordial, relations.

    Out of the yellow fever epidemic of 1876 there developed trouble between Dr.
James J. Waring and Mayor Edward C. Anderson, which culminated in a challenge
from the Mayor's son to the physician to give him "the satisfaction due a
gentleman."

    Dr. Waring was unsparing in his criticism of what he openly denounced as
"The indifference or incapacity of the Mayor of Savannah to alleviate or arrest
the epidemic." The doctor criticised verbally, at meetings of the physicians,
and in the public prints. Finally he attacked Mayor Anderson for "supineness and
indifference" in handling the situation and referred to him as a "professional
office holder and politician." This was in October, when the fever was at its
height.

    E. M. Anderson, son of the Mayor, resented what he considered "venemous and
insulting insinuations," which, he declared, his "father, in view of his
official position, could not resent," and through his friend, T. S. Wayne, Jr.,
demanded an unmistakable apology over Dr. Waring's signature.

    As Colonel Cuthbert had done in 1788 in his dispute with Major Mclntosh, Dr.
Waring declined to recognize young Anderson's right to interfere in the matter.
He had never met the Mayor's son, he declared, and did not know him. Young
Anderson reiterated his demand for a "correction of misstatements and a
disavowal of insulting insinuations." Back came the doctor's reply: "I cannot
recognize your right to make the demand," and the next day Anderson wrote: "I
demand of you the personal satisfaction customary among gentlemen." "My friend,
Mr. T. S. Wayne, Jr., will deliver this to you and he will represent me in the
arrangements of the preliminaries of a meeting between us."

    Dr. Waring in a card to the people of Savannah said: "In spite of a spirit
of forbearance, which must manifest itself to you in this correspondence, and in
spite of the determination that a young man, untrammeled by responsibilities of
business or of family, should not interfere in a difference between men of
mature years, the young gentleman has persistently forced upon me the
alternative of a violation of the moral law and the laws of the State of
Georgia, or of maintaining in a quiet, and I trust dignified, manner the cause I
advocate, which is the cause of all the people, the right of free speech, and
the right of criticism and censure, if deserved, of public men. I shall not
yield this right. Any misstatements of mine I would most cheerfully correct, and
if I have made any unfair deductions from the facts I should always be most
happy to withdraw them, but not at the threat or menace of a party whose right
to interfere I do not recognize. I have placed this young gentleman under bond
for good behavior, and if driven to the necessity I will prosecute criminally in
the courts of law the offender."

    A few days later young Anderson withdrew his challenge through his friend,
T. B. Chisholm, claiming that Dr. Waring had forfeited the recognition due a
gentleman under the code by his procedure in issuing a peace warrant against
him. In a final bitter card to the public, Anderson pointed out that Dr. Waring
himself, on April 28, 1868, had made a demand "on one of our most estimable
citizens for the satisfaction customary amongst gentlemen," and claimed that the
disparity in his age and that of the doctor was no greater than that between the
Mayor's and the doctor's ages. Here the matter was permitted to stand, although
the feeling remained acute for some time between the Andersons and the
physician, who continued his criticisms of the mayor's policies during the
epidemic, but in a more decorous and professional language. The next year Dr.
Waring was again elected an alderman, he having previously served in the City
Council in 1866-69.

    Anderson was correct in his contention that the doctor eight years before
had been involved in a dispute with a prominent citizen and had sent him a
challenge. Old citizens still dimly recall this as the Waring-Levy affair, the
other party to it being Capt. S. Yates Levy, then the editor of the Savannah
"Advertiser."

    Levy's connection with Savannah journalism was brief but spirited. Brilliant
as a lawyer and literateur, with polished dramas to his credit, one of which,
"Venetia, or the Italian Bride," was presented in New York, Boston and other
cities by Miss Eliza Logan, one of the popular lights of the American stage of
that period, who had achieved her first success in Savannah, Capt. Levy carried
his fearlessness and forcefulness into the newspaper arena at a time when
Savannah still lay under the domination of the Federal troops. As Agnew said of
him:

    "On January 1, 1868, S. Yates Levy, Esq., engaged as editor-in-chief of the
'Advertiser.' Under his able management the paper at once took rank with the
leading journals of the State. Mr. Levy was a vigorous and fearless writer,
pointing out and condemning abuses wherever discovered. So keen were some of his
remarks upon the tyrannical actions of the military that an order was sent from
General Meade to either suppress the paper or moderate the tone of its
editorials. Soon after Mr. Levy was obliged by military pressure to retire from
the editorial chair."

    Levy's editorship was but four months old when the trouble came with Dr.
Waring. Differences of political views and judgments were at the bottom of it.
An editorial appeared in the "Advertiser," in which there was no name used and
no direct reference to the physician. Apparently some of the doctor's friends
aggravated him by intimations that it was meant for him. Aroused and indignant,
he wrote to the editor, pointing out that a paragraph in the editorial
reflecting upon the "personal character of an educated and professional man/'
"whose name you withhold for reasons of your own," was construed as pointing to
him, and demanding to know if he were the party intended.

    Editor Levy's answer was to the point. "I am constrained to say that such a
question is extraordinary and unprecedented in journalism, and I cannot
recognize your right to require an answer to it, any more than any and every
other member of society."

    With his sensibilities ruffled and wounded in all likelihood by the further
remarks of associates, Dr. Waring repeated his demand:

    "In the opinion and belief of various friends," declared he, "I was the
person referred to in your editorial. Doubtless you did not intend to commit
yourself in the article alluded to, but you went far enough to lead others to
infer that I was the person. Any communication that does not admit or deny the
fact will be regarded as an admission that I am the party referred to. This will
be handed you by my friend, Capt. David Waldhauer, who will receive your reply."

    The editor again refused to reconsider his position and the physician
formally demanded a "retraction of the offensive language contained in that
article." But he obtained no satisfaction from Levy. "As a member of the
editorial fraternity," answered he, "I will not, at your solicitation, violate
the established rules which govern it upon such a subject. I do not recognize
your right to make of me any of the demands contained in your several notes."

    The doctor insisted that the editor was seeking to shield himself from
giving redress by hiding behind the "established rules of the editorial
fraternity," that he had afforded Levy an opportunity to make amende for the
article that aggrieved him, "and it is now only left for me to demand the
satisfaction customary amongst gentlemen. My friend. Capt. Waldhauer, will
confer with any friend whom you may name, and arrange all preliminaries for a
meeting."

    Capt. Levy was a brave soldier and courageous editor. When this crisis came
in the correspondence he did not hesitate. His reply was immediate, brief and
unmistakable:

    "I shall grant you the satisfaction you demand. My friend, Henry Williams,
Esq., has kindly consented to perform on my part all that is necessary in the
premises."

    On Friday, May 1, Capt. Waldhauer and Mr. Williams, as duly selected seconds
for the prospective duel, met for the purpose of arranging the terms to be
observed at the meeting between the doctor and the editor. But before coming to
an agreement as to time, place and weapons, a note came, signed by H. W. Mercer,
Henry Brigham and Henry R. Jackson, suggesting that the matters in controversy
be submitted to gentlemen of the seconds' selection, "with a view to a
settlement which shall be in accordance with the laws of honor and which will
avoid the necessity of a hostile meeting."

    There was a prompt acquiescence. Capt. Waldhauer accepted the proposal for
his principal and asked the three gentlemen to "undertake the proposed
mediatorial office." Williams insisted that the challenge from Dr. Waring be
first withdrawn, which was done, and then accepted mediation. The volunteer
committee declined to act as arbitrators, however, and William Hunter, John
Screven, Robert H. Anderson and George S. Owens, among the most prominent
Savannahians of their day, were chosen.

    Fourteen days after the beginning of the bellicose correspondence this
"Committee of Honor" announced that it had been "unable to discover anything in
the editorial which particularizes any individual specially," and that there
"was not sufficient reason for the assumption by Dr. Waring that he was the
person alluded to." The committee further held that "whilst we recognize fully
the equal responsibility of an editor of a public journal and a private citizen
for abusive or insulting language, yet we cannot admit the right of everyone who
pleases to consider himself the subject of remarks couched in general terms to
compel the editor by this self application either to withdraw the article or
render satisfaction. Such a course would be productive of endless difficulties
and injure the usefulness of the press as censors of public conduct. We feel
constrained, however, to express our disapprobation of the imputation of
improper 'motives' to any one to whom the article in question may be conceived
to apply."

    This last sentence may be looked upon in the light of an emollient to the
offended physician or any other Savannahians who were constrained to believe
that Capt. Levy's impersonal editorial strictures had concealed personal
allusions to themselves. It took some of the sting out of the award so far as
the doctor was concerned.

    The Waring-Anderson affair was not the only one that was disposed of by the
swearing out of warrants. In 1872 a difficulty arose between William C. Hayes
and James Hunter. Hayes alleged that when he called at the offices of Bryan &
Hunter, brokers, on business, Hunter became abusive and used insulting language
to him and refused to retract. Representing Hayes, Major Charles Macmurdo, a
well-known insurance agent of a half century ago, handed Hunter a note demanding
satisfaction. Hunter sent it back and refused to receive any further
communications, informing Hayes' friend that he would not accept a challenge.

    According to a published statement by T. L. Robertson, a kinsman of Hayes,
"before any further action could be taken Mr. Hayes and Major Macmurdo were
arrested on warrants issued at the instance of Major Henry Bryan," Hunter's
partner. It was claimed that this "evinced a malicious intention to have these
gentlemen indicted, tried, and if possible imprisoned for violation of a law
repugnant to every man who, finding his dignity assailed and his honor outraged,
is determined at all hazards to protect the one and redress the other," and that
Hunter was "sheltered from the consequences of his conduct by this appeal to the
law."

    The intimation was made that there was collusion between Hunter and his
partner in the issuing of the warrants. Major Bryan indignantly denied this.
Hearing of the trouble between the men, he said, and ascertaining that "personal
interference would be useless," he had gone on his own volition "to Judge
Chisholm's house at night and presented two warrants for his signature, sending
them when signed to the sheriff for service." "I simply set in motion that legal
machinery which every member of society may use in such eases. I did not push
the law. I am not seeking to aggravate the quarrel or maliciously pursue any
individual." "My conviction and my sense of social duty impel me to check, if
possible, or mitigate a quarrel occurring within the sphere of my personal
association. I acted on my sole individual judgment and called in the summary
interposition of the law of Georgia to arrest what I presumed might prove to be
a bloody, if not fatal, termination of the pending difficulty."

    Hunter declared that Major Bryan had acted without his knowledge or approval
and that he had expressed his decided disapprobation of the course his partner
had taken. He declared that Hayes' note challenging him had been so discourteous
in tone that it had been returned to the writer through a friend. If this were
so, he was acting in accordance with the dictates of Wilson's Code, which
prescribed, “If the note received be in abusive terms, object to its reception
and return it for that reason," and which further specifically insisted that the
note must be "in the language of a gentleman."

    The warrants against Hayes and Macmurdo were changed so as to avoid a
prosecution under the anti-duelling laws and they were simply placed under bonds
to keep the peace. The atmosphere was soon after cleared and a hostile meeting
avoided in that way. This and other incidents showed how recourse to the law was
apt to be misconstrued and complicate a trouble by provoking an insinuation of
cowardice.

    The feeling that duels were private matters that did not concern the general
public still lingered in many minds. Major Charles S. Hardee, now and for so
many years Savannah's city treasurer, was at this time the editor of the "Daily
Republican," and in that capacity he gave voice to this long cherished sentiment
as to the right of gentlemen to arrange for the settlement of their private
differences without the public interfering. Wrote he as to this particular affair:

    "Rumor hath it that the code has been called upon to settle a personal
difficulty between two well-known gentlemen of the city of Savannah. We have
been made acquainted with the facts, which, it is thought, warrant this resort;
but while we are non-committal on the question of the duello, we regard these
matters as entirely private, and not the subject of local paragraphs. The least
said (in such cases) the sooner end it."

    While the would-be duellists of this period were sometimes compelled to
remain under cover during the making of the arrangements for their meetings,
this may not have been due to any fear in their minds of unpleasant results
under the law in the event that the duels actually occurred. Truth to tell, the
judge on the bench and the solicitor-general charged with the prosecution of
such cases, had themselves resorted to the code and could not be regarded as
having very pronounced sentiments against it or its devotees. Many prominent
citizens, some of whom were apt to be on the grand jury, had likewise imperilled
their lives and the lives of others in similar fashion. The tendency to defy the
state statutes as to duelling, while less pronounced than before the war, was
still sufficiently in evidence to show a reasonable assurance of safety from
vigorous prosecution. In fact, during the whole duelling period no Savannahian
seems to have been haled into court and forced to face a jury for participation
in an affair of honor.

    Judge Henry B. Tompkins, who presided over the Savannah circuit at this
time, had before his elevation to the bench traveled across the river and faced
another attorney with the usual code formalities. He and T. W. Rucker, so well
known here and throughout the state as "Time" Rucker, had a falling out in a
magistrate's court in 1872 over a case in which they were opposing counsel. A
sharp exchange of unpleasantries was followed by a quick resort to the code, and
before any committee could adjust the trouble the two young lawyers met with
their duelling pistols at hand ready for use. On the field, however, cooler
heads succeeded in averting a tragedy and they returned to Savannah with the
cases carrying exactly the same number of bullets with which they had been taken
from the city.

    As usual, the "Morning News" withheld names in its reference to this affair,
which follows:

    "Yesterday our citizens down town were on the qui vive in regard to an
affair of honor which was pending between two lawyers of this city. It appears
from what we can learn that the difficulty grew out of a case in Justice
Elsin-ger's court, in which one of them impugned the veracity of the other. A
written request was made for a retraction, which was met with a refusal, and the
result was a challenge and an acceptance. The place selected was the well-known
duelling ground at Screven Ferry, and the weapons chosen were pistols—distance
ten paces—and yesterday at five o'clock the appointed time for the hostile
meeting. As the parties were about to be placed in position, the friends of the
challenged party stated that they could submit a proposition which would lead to
an honorable adjustment of the difficulty. After some parley the matter was
amicably arranged by a disclaimer of the offensive language which was the cause
of the affair. The parties returned to the city about seven o'clock."

    Judge Tompkins was an Alabamian who had fought bravely through the war, and
when nineteen years of age, after valiant service on the field, commanded a
company. He was wounded in the head at Chickamauga and shot through the body at
Atlanta. His opponent was equally brave, and without the intervention of friends
at the duelling ground a fatal result would probably have ensued from their
meeting. Tompkins is described as a man of fine personal appearance, large,
tall, with an air of dignity but devoid of arrogance, affable in manner,
pleasant in conversation, fond of society, just and generous and an able
attorney. Appointed by Governor Smith in 1875 to fill the unexpired term of
Judge William Schley, he remained on the bench here five years, 1875-79, during
which time the noted Telfair will case, and the remarkable efforts of English
descendants of the Boltons to lay claim to a large part of Savannah, were argued
before him. From Savannah the judge removed to Atlanta, where he became a
prominent member of the bar. It was during his life there that he took part in a
minor way in the last duel fought in Georgia, the unique Calhoun-Williamson
affair in 1889.

    The principals and seconds in this duel are recalled by many Savannahians.
Patrick Calhoun, grandson of the famous John C., was at one time general counsel
of the Richmond Terminal Co., and J. R. Williamson was one of North Georgia's
railroad magnates of that period. Before a legislative investigating committee
Calhoun made a remark which was construed as deliberately reflecting on the
integrity of Williamson. A sharp denunciation of the statement as a falsehood
lead to a demand from Calhoun for an apology, which was refused, and Calhoun
sent a challenge which was accepted. Capt. Harry Jackson, son of General Henry
R. Jackson, of Savannah, became Calhoun's second, with Capt. Jack King acting
for Williamson, with Judge Tompkins acting also as a friend and in an advisory
capacity for the challengee.

    Gordon N. Hurtel, of the Atlanta "Constitution," has told of the duel in
detail. By different rail routes the parties sought a meeting place in Alabama.
There were amusing incidents with country sheriffs seeking to arrest them before
they finally succeeded in facing each other at a secluded spot, whether in this
State or Alabama no one knows. For some reason Calhoun objected to Judge
Tompkins leaving the train and going on the field as a witness of the meeting.
Hammerless Smith & Wesson pistols were used, each carrying five bullets, the
arrangement being that five shots were to be exchanged, if necessary- Williamson
interpreted this that each principal could fire the five shots as quickly and as
continuously as he might desire. When the signal to fire was given he proceeded
to unload his pistol in the direction of Calhoun, but the five bullets whizzed
by without reaching the target. Calhoun had fired one shot and paused.
Williamson was at his mercy, with the right in Calhoun to take deliberate aim
four successive times, if he wished to do so.

    "Capt. Williamson," said Calhoun, "I have four bullets left and I demand
that you retract the insult you offered me."

    "I have no shot left and you have four," was the reply. "You will have to
fire them."

    Calhoun hesitated a moment and then fired the four shots in the air.

    "It was not my intention to reflect upon you in my comments before the
legislative committee," said he.

    Capt. Williamson then withdrew his words which had given such offense, and,
a reconciliation effected, the parties returned to Atlanta.

    As Savannahians were connected with the first duel ever fought on Georgia
soil, so former Savannahians, in the persons of Jackson and Tompkins, played
their part in this last duel between Georgians.


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/gms423savannah.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/

File size: 56.8 Kb