P. What excited your astonishment?

O- I was astonished, that while you see so clearly the immoral nature, and the demoralizing and fatal tendency of duelling, you have not seemed aware how easily your remarks might be applied to another custom, which has been still more popular, and more destructive.

P. You mean probably the ancient custom of killing men for their religious opinions, when they happened to dissent from the creed of the majority.

O. No, sir; that is not the custom I had in view, but one as unreasonable, and more destructive to the lives of men. Perhaps at an earlier moment of our interview I should have disclosed more fully the result of those reflections, to which I was led by being removed from office. But I have felt a delicacy in the affair, and some fears lest I should say something which would not be so acceptable to your excellency, as what I have said on a custom which we mutually abhor.

P. The ingenuous and amiable spirit you have dis played, in regard to your removal from office, has gained my confidence and esteem. You may speak without reserve. I think I shall hear with patience, and I hope with impartiality.

O. To be frank, sir, when I had reflected on the immoral nature of duelling, and become fully convinced of its injustice and enormity, I was then led to compare this custom with that of war, for which also I had been an advocate. The more I pondered, the more I was struck with the similarity of the principles, on which the two Customs have been supported. On the whole, I became fully convinced, that war, has no advantage of duelling in respect to its being necessary, justifiable, or honorable; and that it is as much worse than duelling, as it is more destructive to the lives of innocent people.

P. You surprize me, sir! Are you not aware that war has been admitted for the settlement of national controversies, in all ages and all countries, as far back as history extends?

0. I am, sir: But had duelling been as uniformly and universally admitted, as the best method of settling disputes between individuals, would that amount to proof of the propriety of the custom?

P. It would not. There is however, a striking dis

similarity in the two cases. Duelling results from the folly and rashness of presumptuous individuals, who assume a right to expose their own lives, and to destroy one another. But war is made by lawful authority, by the deliberate counsels of the rulers of a nation.

O. Suppose then, that the rulers of a civilized nation should deliberately authorize duels, as the best mode of deciding private controversies; would this abate the malignant and odious nature of the custom? And would not such a set of rulers be justly considered as barbarians? P. Be this as it may; you will admit that the offences, for which wars are declared, are of a more serious nature, than those for which duels are fought.

O. No, sir, not always. One half the wars in christendom have been declared without any real offence at all, or on as frivolous pretexts as challenges are given by duellists. Offences may be called either great or small only by comparison; and to make a fair estimate in the two cases, we should compare the offences with the probable consequences of an appeal to arms. The offences for which duels are fought appear trifling, compared with the probable and the possible consequences of seeking a redress by a challenge. When a duel is to be fought for the decision of a private dispute between two gentlemen, it is probable that one, and possible that both the combatants will be killed ; and that one or both of their family connexions will be subjected to mourning and woe. Now certainly it must be an offence of a more serious nature than usually occurs, to justify an appeal to pistols or swords, with such awful prospects as the result; and it is in this view of the matter that the usual pretexts for duels appear altogether insufficient and trifling, P. This is granted

O. Well, sir, in the present state of the civilized nations of christendom, when a war is declared, it must be done with a probability that sixty thousand lives will be sacrificed, and a much greater number of families subject. ed to severe affliction; and with a possibility that ten times this amount of suffering will be the consequence of making war. In what instance, then, has a war been declared, when the offence was not trifling, compared ith the probable and possible consequences of an appeal arms? The challenge for a duel exposes but two lives;

the declaration of war as really exposes a hundred thousand. Are then the offences, for which war is usually declared, a hundred thousand times greater, than those for which challenges are given? If not, they are very insufficient to justify war

P. But the honor of a nation will not allow a govern ment to submit to insult or aggression. If they submit in one case they may in another; and every instance of submission is an invitation to renewed insult. It is of the highest importance to a nation, that its rulers should be ever ready to vindicate its honor, by an appeal to

arms.

O. And what, may it please your excellency, does all this amount to, but the plea of a duellist from the lips of a ruler? You have admitted that duelling is practised in support of false principles of honor, and that the sacrifices thus made are wanton & needles. But an appeal to arms in vindication of honor, is no more necessary on the part of a nation, than on the part of a military officer, or any other gentleman. The delusion is the same in both cases-dishonorable and ruinous sacrifices are made to a phantom called honor, while TRUE HONOR is but little regarded.

P. But what could the rulers of a nation do in a case like ours before the late war? We complained of wrongs, repeated and urged our complaints over and over again, but the British government forbore redress, till our pa tience was exhausted.

O. What would you advise a gentleman of bonor to do in a similar case? His brother has insulted him, or said something by which his honor is wounded The com

plainant has repeatedly stated his grievances, but redress is delayed Would you advise him to send a challenge, and then, if he can, blow a ball through his brother's heart? Would you also advise him to kill off half a score of his brother's family, who never have done him, nor even wished him, the least injury ?

P. Not so this would be horrible; but you have not given a direct answer to my question; what could have been done to avoid the war?

O THE VERY SAME, SIR. THAT WAS DONE TO MAKE PEACE Nothing more, I think, could have been necessary. Such a treaty as we now have, had it been made be

fore the war, would have saved all the sacrifices of blood and treasure on both sides of the contest. And your excellency will not deny, that such a treaty might have been obtained before the war, at less expense than the support of one of our commissioners at Ghent.

P But the war has raised our national character, and evinced that other nations are not to injure us with impunity.

O. May it please your excellency, I admit that the war has raised our national character just as a duellist raises his own character when he gives a challenge, fights bravely, injures his antagonist, receives a wound which must be a burden for life, and then makes peace without any other concession or recompense

P. I will not impute to you any unfriendly design, but your remarks seem to have a bearing against me, as president of the nation.

O. Be assured. sir, that nothing unfriendly or disrespectful has been or will be intended by me I have been myself an advocate both for war and duelling. The measures you adopted to check duelling, were the occasion of my present views on both subjects. On the subject of duelling we are now perfectly agreed. I wish to recompence your favor to me, by convincing you that war and duelling are equally unjustifiable.

P. It would be awful to me, to think of the havoc of lives during the late war, should I become of your opin ion. I think, however, no person acquainted with me can say, that I am naturally of a malignant and sanguin. ary character. Some circumstances had influence to induce me to consent to the war, which it may not be proper to name. But of this you may rest assured, that I did not consent to the war under a conviction, that the custom of war was murderous and unjustifiable, as General Hamilton consented to a duel with Burr.

O. By what he supposed to be the popular opinion, General Hamilton was induced to think that, all things considered, it was better for him to comply with a cus. tom, which he believed to be immoral, than to refuse.

And although your excellency had not been convinced that the custom of war was unjustifiable, yet some res. pectable characters have been of the opinion, that you consented to the war, not so much from a conviction of

its justice, as from a desire to gratify some others, and to give scope to what you thought was the popular feeling. But whether this apprehension be correct, I pretend not to say. I believe that your friends in general do not impute to you a sanguinary character.

P. I verily thought, and still think, that we had received injuries from Great Britain; I supposed the custom of war to be justifiable; and I had reason to think that the war would be popular with that part of the nation which raised me to the presidency.

The war has not, indeed, produced all the benefits I hoped for: but peace is again restored, and I regard it as a blessing. Your remarks on war have made some impression on my mind. If I have been in an error, it is of a serious nature, and I wish to know the truth. But the evening is far spent. If you wish to make any farther communications to me on the subject of war, will it not be best to do it by letter? In this way you will have opportunity to set your arguments in the strongest light, and I shall have opportunity to examine them with greater attention and advantage. Whatever may be the result I will read with care, and endeavor to weigh your reasoning in an even balance.

O. Both your candor and your proposal strike my mind agreeably. I shall reflect on them with pleasure, and I think I shall write, for my heart is filled with the subject, and from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and the pen moves with ease. You may probably think me an enthusiast; but my enthusiasm leads me to endeavor to save men's lives, and not to destroy them. Such enthusiasm I would gladly diffuse through the land, and through the world. Should it become as general and as ardent, as has been the destructive enthusiasm for war and violence, our present peace will never be interrupted. Without the least hesitation, I submit to the good sense of your excellency one question, and with that shall close, on my part, the present agreeable interview-Which is the most to be commended and encouraged, an enthusiasm to save, or an enthusiasm to destroy?

P. You do me justice in believing, that I cannot hesitate in so plain a case. Farewell, my very good friend, farewell.