A FORGOTTEN DUEL UC-NRLF WALTER AUSTIN B 3 3DT A FORGOTTEN DUEL WILLIAM AUSTIN. A FORGOTTEN DUEL Fought in Rhode Island between William Austin, of Charlestown, and James Hen derson Elliot, of Boston, March 31, 1806 BY WALTER AUSTIN PRIVATELY PRINTED 1914 TO jBRarp Slltot Corop, GRANDDAUGHTER OF GENERAL SIMON ELLIOT, THIS BOOK IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY WALTER AUSTIN, GRANDSON OF WILLIAM AUSTIN I became sufficiently interested to pursue the subject further, and gathered the material forming the substance of this article, hoping it might be of interest to the descendants of the principals. It is a pleasure to record my obligation to Miss Mary Elliot Torrey, granddaughter of Major General Simon Elliot, for facts con cerning the life of General Elliot and his son, James Henderson Elliot, and for kindly al lowing me to publish their portraits in this article. I also thank Charles M. Cabot, Esq., for allowing me to quote from the " Autobi ographical Sketch and Family Reminis cences/' written by his father, James Elliot Cabot, a grandnephew of General Elliot. W. A. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE PREFACE 7 I. THE PRINCIPALS AND THEIR SECONDS ... 13 II. THE COURT MARTIAL OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH LORING, JUNIOR 29 III. THE "DECIUS" ARTICLE 34 IV. THE CHALLENGE AND ACCEPTANCE .... 44 V. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE DUEL . .51 VI. THE DUEL 56 APPENDIX A 61 APPENDIX B 64 APPENDIX C 64 APPENDIX D 65 ILLUSTRATIONS WILLIAM AUSTIN .... GENERAL SIMON ELLIOT . JAMES HENDERSON ELLIOT AUSTIN'S LETTER TO SUMNER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE DUEL PLAN OF THE DUEL PAGE Frontispiece . 18 . 21 44 51 56 A Forgotten Duel The Principals and their Seconds THE duel between William Austin and James Henderson Elliot was fought March 31, 1806, two years after the memorable Ham ilton-Burr duel. It should be remembered that the period between the beginning of the century and the ending of the War of 1812- 1815 was one of violent political passions and prejudices. Party feeling ran high as it never did before or since in this country, and the many duels fought in this period usually orig inated from some political quarrel. Politics was also the origin of the Austin-Elliot duel. Both were young men, William Austin, a Democrat, 28 years of age, and James Hen derson Elliot, a Federalist, but little past his majority. The latter was the challenger, ta king up the cudgels for his father, Major General Simon Elliot, who, he fancied, had been grievously wronged by young Austin in [13] a newspaper article signed " Decius." 1 Be fore considering the cause and merits of the controversy let us see briefly who the princi pals and their seconds were. William Austin, born March 2, 1778, was the son of Nathaniel Austin of Charlestown, Massachusetts, of the .Austin family that settled in Charlestown in 1638, and of Margaret Rand, a sister of Dr. Isaac Rand, well spoken of by Lorenzo Sabine in the " Biographical Sketches of American Loyal ists." Graduating from Harvard College in 1798, a few years later he took up law as a profession. In 1799 he was appointed school master and chaplain in the Navy, being, I believe, the first commissioned chaplain in the service. In 1803 he studied law at Lincoln's Inn, London, returning eighteen months later to Charlestown to practise his profession. Politics early interested him, and later he represented Charlestown as a Democrat in the lower branch of the state legislature and the County of Middlesex in the Senate. I can give no better description of Mr. Austin than that given by his classmate, Sidney Willard, in " Memories of Youth and Manhood." Mr. Willard says: 1 Given in full in Chap. III. " At no time, so far as I can remember, did Mr. Austin while at college show any desire to excel in the prescribed studies, being doubt less of the opinion that one has as good a right of choice in the studies he shall pursue as in the companions with whom he shall choose to associate. Apart from this, which was un just to himself, he employed much of his time usefully, and was among the most distin guished belle-lettrists (if I may use a word of Coleridge's coining) of his class, and wrote with far more facility and sprightliness than the generality of its members. Soon after he received his degree he went to England as a literary amateur and observer, and wrote many letters home, which after his return he collected and published in a volume. They embrace a variety of topics, and among them descriptions of some of the most distinguished Parliamentary speakers at the close of the last and the beginning of the present century, which form an interesting part of the book. For his professional life he studied law, and practised in this profession as an attorney, counsellor, and advocate. His ideas indeed were quick and often brilliant, but his tem perament was impulsive, and he failed in that degree of illustrative amplification and that continuity of thought which are necessary to lead common minds to the desired conclusion. As a companion he was entertaining and in structive, one whom it was pleasing to meet even casually in the street; for there was al ways something uppermost in his mind, and one might perceive in his approach that he had something to say, and he said it very abruptly perhaps, and sometimes it was very odd, but not infrequently suggestive of more than was said. While in active life Austin belonged to the Democratic party, and for two years, beginning in May, 1822, he was a member of the Massachusetts Senate for the County of Middlesex. It was a time when party politics interfered little with legislation. He was also in 1820 a delegate from Charles- town to the Convention for revising the Con stitution of Massachusetts, and upon some of the proposed amendments he took an active part in the debates. In the debate concerning the government of Harvard College he mani fested a liberal spirit. With his usual frank ness he acknowledged that he had formerly entertained prejudices, but they had long since been dissipated. It is a remarkable fact that there were eight members of the class graduated at Harvard College in 1798 who were members of this Convention; namely, John Abbot, William Austin, Samuel P. P. Fay, Isaac Fiske, Henry Gardner, Joseph Story, Richard Sullivan, and Joseph Tucker- man. " Though Austin wrote with facility from a mind well stored I am not aware that he contributed largely to the literature of his times. His story of Peter Rugg, published in the Galaxy (a paper conducted by Joseph T. Buckingham), had great celebrity and was copied in many newspapers and miscellane ous journals. It is a story unsurpassed in its kind and so well and consistently sustained [16] that the reader cannot fail to follow the hero in his perpetual motion with a feeling of sym pathy and anxiety for his fate. " I have omitted to mention in its proper place what I here add; namely, that Austin was elected at the usual time a member of the Phi Beta Kappa Society, but did not accept, declaring his determination not to belong to any secret society." " What is said of Mr. Austin as an advo cate is partially true. He could make a close and able argument, but I think that from the bent and formation of his mind, unless he thought his client had a just cause he could not with energy enforce his arguments. He was, however, a most faithful counsellor, and when he officiated on trials as a justice for the County of Middlesex, all the Boston Bar, with scarcely an exception, brought their Middlesex actions to 'his Court" 1 Though a lawyer Austin " appears to have been as deeply interested in his avocations as in his vocation, and foremost among these was the writing of books." 2 Among the pub lications bearing his name were " Letters from London," in Boston, 1804; the essay on " The Human Character of Jesus Christ," in Boston, 1807; " Peter Rugg, the Missing Man," in the New England Galaxy for Sept. 1 Biographical Sketch, by his son, James Walker Austin. 2 Hamilton W. Mabie, in " Stories New and Old " ; Mac- millan Co., 1908. [17] io, 1824; the "Sufferings of a Country Schoolmaster," in the New England Galaxy, July 8, 1825; "The late Joseph Natter- strom," in the New England Magazine, July, 1831; "The Man with the Cloaks/' in the American Monthly Magazine, Jan., 1836; and " Martha Gardner," in the American Monthly Magazine, Dec., 1837. The story of " Peter Rugg " especially gained Austin much popularity, and the editor of Bucking ham's New England Galaxy says of it: " This article was reprinted in other papers and books, and read more than any newspaper communication that has fallen within my knowledge." The high character of Austin's work was recognized by one of the foremost of American critics, a scholar well acquainted with the history of American literature, Colo nel Thomas Wentworth Higginson. In an essay contributed to the Independent, March 29, 1888, Colonel Higginson speaks of Will iam Austin as " A precursor of Hawthorne." Austin died in Charlestown, June 27, I84I. 1 General Simon Elliot, to whom the " De- cius " newspaper communication was ad- 1 For a more complete account of his life, see " Literary Papers of William Austin, with a Biographical Sketch by his son, James Walker Austin," published by Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1890. [18] GENERAL SIMON ELLIOT. (From the painting by Chester Harding.) dressed, was born Feb. 22, 1762,* and died in 1831. He was the son of Simon Elliot and Sarah Wilson Elliot. General Elliot was much interested in military matters, being Lieutenant Colonel of the First Corps of Boston Cadets in 1795, and the following year commissioned a Major General in the Massachusetts militia, holding this position for several years. His business was that of a merchant engaged in the manufacture of paper and snuff. 2 In the latter part of his life General Elliot lived in Brookline. He was married to Miss Eliza Barnard and had two children, James Henderson Elliot, who died in 1808, and Elizabeth Elliot, the mother of Mary Elliot Torrey. Elizabeth Elliot mar ried Charles Torrey in 1823. For facts con cerning General Elliot's life and character I quote his granddaughter, Mary Elliot Tor rey, and his grandnephew, James Elliot Cabot. Miss Torrey says: " Of course all I know with regard to him was from hearsay, as he died before I was born; but my mother (General Elliot's 1 From Simon Elliot's Bible. See " Autobiographical Sketch and Family Reminiscences," by James Elliot Cabot (grandnephew of General Elliot and named after James Henderson Elliot) ; privately printed at Boston, 1904. 2 From Boston Directory, 1806 : " Simon Elliot, Paper and snuff store, 51 State St. House 7 Federal St." [19] daughter) talked constantly of him, and his name was a byword in our family. I have a painting of him by Chester Harding, and also a painting of his son, James Henderson Elliot, by Gilbert Stuart." James Elliot Cabot writes this of his grand- uncle, General Elliot: 1 " Uncle Simon Elliot, my mother's uncle, who lived with us in the Nahant house, a gray-haired, rosy old gentleman, of whom we children were very fond. He had been a Brigadier General of Militia; 2 and he and grandfather Perkins 3 (Colonel of the Ca dets) used, my mother afterwards told me, to spend much time in military manoeuvres carried on with blocks of wood. . . . " Uncle Elliot was like his mother in dis position. He made unfortunate investments and lost his money. His property was sold most of it real estate. He retired to Brook- line, and built the house where Mrs. Sullivan Warren lives. . . . " Uncle Elliot had heart disease in the lat ter part of his life and died of it. He used to like to stay with us at Nahant, and we liked to have him. When he failed in busi ness, father bought the Newton place, and allowed him to live there. One day, in cross ing the foot-bridge, he was seized with some affection of the heart from which he never 1 Autobiographical Sketch; before referred to. J He was a Major General. 'Thomas Handasyd Perkins. [20] JAMES HENDERSON ELLIOT. (From the painting by Gilbert Stuart.) recovered, though Dr. Warren used to seton and blister him for it. Father built the house in Brookline for him, as his wife was dead and he required careful nursing. . . . When our house at Nahant was built, he and Eliza beth used to pass their summers with us. He would sit all day on the piazza, with his tele scope." The following is an obituary notice, printed at the time of General Elliot's death in 1831 : " On Monday morning at his residence in Brookline, General Simon Elliot, in his yoth year, a gentleman whose name has been long familiar and endeared to this community by the high and honorable integrity and attract ive suavity with which he discharged the duties of both civil and military offices com mitted to him. The impulses of his heart were warm and kind as long as it continued to beat. He sustained an illness of many years and knew himself hourly to be in danger of instant death with a calmness and patience which was most soothing to those who watched over him. The strongest feature perhaps of his character, his earnest desire to give pleasure to others, was as conspicuous in the retirement of his chamber and the suf fering of sickness as in the days when health and office gave him a wider sphere." James Henderson Elliot, the only son of General Simon Elliot, and one of the princi- [21] pals in the duel, was born in Boston, July n, 1782, and died in Boston, April 20, 1808; 1 therefore at the date of the duel he must have been twenty-three years of age. He gradu ated from Harvard University in 1802, re ceiving his degree of Master of Arts in 1805; and Bowdoin College conferred the same de gree upon him in i8o6. 2 In 1805 he finished his professional studies for the law, and was admitted a member of the bar. It is likely that ill health prevented his practising his profession to much of an extent. Like his father he was interested in a military life, at the time of his death being an aide de camp to his father, with the rank of Major, in the First Division of the Militia of the Common wealth. Major Elliot was a charming man, both in person and manners, of a highly cultivated taste, and generally liked by all who knew him. In James Elliot Cabot's Autobiograph ical Sketch, referred to before, are several references to him. Mr. Cabot, quoting his mother, Mrs. Samuel Cabot, whose mother was General Simon Elliot's sister, says: 3 1 Harvard University records. 'Harvard University records. See also Appendix B. ""Notes of conversations with Eliza Cabot (Mrs. Samuel Cabot), written down by her son, J. E. C," at page 63. [22] " James Elliot, for whom you were named, was a handsome man of very pleasing man ners. He died when I was a young girl. He was a free liver, but not in dissipated habits. Did not amuse himself with mischief in the cold-hearted way of some of his companions. He was a great crony of Harry Cabot's." Mrs. Cabot then goes on and relates some of the pranks and amusing escapades of " James Elliot," as she calls him, during his college life. When young Elliot died in 1808, the Bos ton Gazette of April 2^th of that year gave this obituary notice of him, the completes! sketch of his character and life now extant: " On Thursday we performed the painful duty of announcing the death of the deeply lamented Maj. James Henderson Elliot, the only son of Maj. Gen. Simon Elliot of this town. His remains were entombed on Satur day with military honors amid an immense concourse of spectators. The procession moved from the house of the deceased's father in Federal Street, down Milk Street, through Kilby, up State Street, Cornhill and Marl- borough Street, through Frog Lane, to the Common burying ground and family vault. . . . " When an individual, undistinguished from the multitude, passes from the stage of [23] action, it is an event, which from its fre quency, excites only the sympathies of his domestic circle; for the public has no hopes and little interest in such a being. But when one, just stepping on the threshold of life, possessed of every charm in person and man ners and every qualification of mind and un derstanding which could gratify the pride of his family and rivet the attachment of his friends, surrounded with every circumstance which could brighten hope, and endowed with powers which might have rendered him splendidly useful in any civil or military capacity, is removed from terrestrial exist ence, it excites no vulgar sorrow, no common regret, but is a subject of deep and general concern. Such men are not born for them selves; they are the property of their country, and in times of danger its last and best hope. . . . " Major Elliot had entered his twenty-sixth year. He was early designed for public life, and his education was directed to that end. He received a Master's degree from Harvard University in 1805, at which time he also com pleted his professional studies under the pres ent Chief Justice of this Commonwealth. While a student he was distinguished for the finest person, as the best bred gentleman, and the most accomplished orator among his con temporaries. " Soon after Major E. was admitted to the bar he was seized with a pulmonary com plaint which rendered it advisable to essay, for a winter's residence, a more genial cli- [24] mate. This afforded temporary relief, but with returning winter his disease returned with augmented violence, and has removed him, as we confidently trust, * to another and a better world.' His face was of the Roman cast, strongly marked and commandingly beautiful; his person was tall and elegant, and his manners polished and graceful; his taste was highly cultivated; he had treasured up much general information from miscella neous and desultory reading and his collo quial powers were unusually happy. He was generous, brave, and magnanimous; he had nothing in his composition sordid, low or popular; there was nothing in him, which the great, vulgar, or the small, could estimate. He loved virtue and admired greatness. As he had lived without guile in his mouth or malice in his heart, he feared not to die. Nothing but disgrace and dishonour had any terrors for his mind. In his religious opinions there was no intolerance. . . . His loss to his family is irreparable; and the breach occa sioned by his death in the circle of friendship will not be soon healed but alas ! he is gone forever." Among those in the procession (which was headed by the First Corps of Cadets) were the Governor of the Commonwealth and Generals Winslow, Gardner, Donnison, and Davis, and other staff and field officers of the First Division. The funeral services were held " at the Rev. Mr. Ghanning's Meeting House, on Federal Street." l Charles Pinckney Sumner was Austin's second in the duel. He was the father of Charles Sumner, afterwards distinguished as Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. Sumner was born in Milton in 1776, and graduated from Harvard College in 1796. A lawyer by profession, he early attached himself to the Democratic party, thus creating another bond of sympathy between himself and William Austin. In 1825 Gov. Lincoln appointed him to the position of Sheriff of the County of Suffolk, which he retained until his death in 1839. The Anti-Masonic candidacy for Governorship of the State and the Mayoralty of Boston were both offered him and de clined. Mr. Sumner seemed always to have regretted his part in the Austin-Elliot duel. James Spear Loring in " The Hundred Bos ton Orators," published in 1852, in speaking of Sumner's connection with the duel, says: " Mr. Sumner deeply regretted having taken a part in this conflict, and the subject was unknown to his children until after his decease." Henry Sargent, Elliot's second in the duel, 1 Columbian Centinel, April 23, 1808. [26] was born in 1770 and died in Boston, Febru ary 21, 1845. He was an artist and studied in England under Sir Benjamin West. 1 In the Boston Directory of 1806, the year of the duel, his occupation is given as that of a " Portrait painter, i School St." His best known painting is that of the " Landing of the Pilgrims," now in Plymouth. Daniel Sargent, his father, in 1797 " removed to a large and splendid mansion at the corner of Essex and Lincoln Streets." 2 It was in this house that Henry Sargent lived at the time of the duel. 3 John Sargent, a brother, was an aide to General Simon Elliot, and another brother, Lucius Manlius Sargent, was the author of " The Temperance Tales." In " Reminiscences of Lucius Manlius Sargent," by John Hannibal Sheppard, Bos ton, 1871, is this brief sketch of Henry Sar gent's life: " Henry Sargent was bapt. Nov. 25, 1770; died at his home in Franklin Place, Feb. 21, 1845, aged 74; m. Hannah, dau. of Samuel and Isabella Welles, of Boston, April 19, 1807. Mr. Sargent was a painter of emi- 1 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. 2 5> page 210. * See William Austin's letter to Charles Pinckney Sumner, page 46. [27] nence. His ' Landing of the Pilgrims/ in the Hall at Plymouth, given to the Pilgrim Society, has been admired by every visitor. They had four children." l 1 Two survived childhood, Henry Winthrop Sargent, born 1810, and John Turner Welles Sargent, born 1813, both gradu ates of Harvard University. [28] II The Court Martial of Captain Joseph Loring, Junior Now that we have introduced the princi pals and seconds of the duel, let us examine briefly the causes leading to it. On October 8, 1805, one Captain Joseph Loring, Junior, of the Massachusetts Sub-Legion of Light Infantry of General John Winslow's Legion ary Brigade, was arrested on charges pre ferred by General Winslow. The Complaint was addressed to " Simon Elliot, Major Gen eral of the First Division of the Massachu setts Militia." General Elliot was a Federal ist and Captain Loring was a Democrat. The Complaint charged Captain Loring with " disobeying a Brigade Order of the 9th September, ordering a parade on Boston Common for review and inspection on the 30th of same month; also for disobeying a Brigade Order of the i6th September direct ing the Sub-Legion of Light Infantry to ap- [29] pear on the said 3Oth with 16 sporting car tridges, both which orders the said Captain Joseph Loring disobeyed, and in an unsoldier- like manner came on said parade without any of his soldiers and there entered a protest against said orders by delivering to Capt. John Brazer ... a paper containing state ments, as facts, which were untrue and un- officerlike for him to state, and entertaining objections to said orders totally contrary to their true intent and meaning; " also that he did " connive at, if not abet, and procure the men under his command to mutiny, and to neglect and refuse to appear in said parade, and did not make use of all his influence as their commanding officer that they might ap pear." A Division Court Martial was or dered by General Elliot in the County Court House, Boston, and the trial began October 29, 1805, Captain Loring having pleaded not guilty. 1 The whole trouble grew out of poli tics. Captain Loring had protested against his command being placed at the parade below certain other Captains " whose com missions were posterior to mine." At any rate the members of his company espoused 1 See The Militia Reporter, containing " The Trial of Capt. Joseph Loring, Junior, on the charges of Gen. Winslow," printed at Boston by T. Kennard, 1810. [30] his cause and refused to turn out for the parade hence the court martial. The trial was a protracted one, and at once the people and the newspapers took sides ac cording to their political affiliations. We have already seen that this was a period of violent political passions and prejudices. Politics divided families, churches, and com munities, and even entered into trials for murder. In 1806 Thomas O. Self ridge was tried for manslaughter for shooting Charles Austin on State Street, Boston, son of the Hon. Benjamin Austin, a cousin of William Austin. Politics led to the killing of Austin and is said greatly to have influenced the trial of Selfridge, who was acquitted by the jury. Politics even entered into the conduct of funerals, for Nathaniel Ames refused to at tend the funeral of his brother, Fisher Ames, the distinguished Dedham statesman, because the Federalists had charge of the burial. 1 The court martial of Captain Loring tends to show that politics entered into military matters as well. 2 1 Diary of Nathaniel Ames, owned by the Dedham Histor ical Society. 2 The Court consisted of Lieut. Col. John Barker, Presi dent; Major Barnabas Clark, Major Oliver Johonnot, Cap tain William Barnes, Captain Henry Purkitt, Captain Adam Kinsley, Captain Michael Harris, Captain John Robinson, [31] Without going into the merits of the case, the trial was prolonged from October 29, 1805, to December 7, 1805, when Captain Loring, who was a prisoner all this time, was acquitted of all the charges preferred against him. However, the Court was sworn not to divulge sentence until it was approved or dis approved by the Major General, and General Elliot did neither for several months, Cap tain Loring remaining under arrest all this time. In point of fact Captain Loring was not given his liberty, nor did he know of the Court's finding, until April 10, 1806, eleven days after the duel. General Elliot disap proved of the finding. It is but fair to say that considering General Elliot's unblemished character there must have been other reasons than politics which led him to believe that Captain Loring should have been kept in confinement all this time. In the meantime in January, 1806, Captain Loring addressed a letter to Governor Strong, a Federalist, stating that he was still under arrest, but could not hear the result of his trial, and requested His Excellency's inter- Lieutenant John Pratt, Lieutenant David Shepard, Lieutenant Elisha French, Jr., Lieutenant Lewis Fisher, Lieutenant William Turner, Adjutant Henry M. Lisle, Judge Advocate, in place of Captain Charles Davis, resigned. Lieutenant George Bass, Marshal to the Court. [32] ference. The Governor ignored his request, stating that " he had no doubt Gen. Elliot would do what was right." Captain Loring and the men of his company then addressed certain Memorials to the Legislature, also Federalist, asking for relief, but they were referred to a committee who reported that the signers had " leave to withdraw their Memo rials." This action of the Governor and the Legislature greatly stirred the people of Bos ton and the surrounding towns, and the parti san newspapers devoted much space to the controversy. [33] Ill The "Decius" Article IN the meantime, over in Charlestown, an interested spectator of this turmoil over Cap tain Loring's trial was young William Aus tin, the lawyer. Although his article which caused the duel states that he was " disinter ested " and " biassed by no party," yet he probably was biassed unconsciously, for in the article he refers slightingly to " Federalism." Always a man of strong convictions, and a lifelong Democrat, he undoubtedly felt the prolonged imprisonment of Captain Loring at the hands of General Elliot, a Federalist, to be a grievous injustice. While in this state of mind it is not unreasonable to suppose that Captain Loring's publication, on March 12, 1806, of his "Collection of facts, supported by documents, relative to the unpleasant situ ation in which I and my Company have found ourselves," was the final straw which drove [34] Austin to attack General Elliot. And what easier way was there than by his pen, for Sidney Willard, his classmate, says, 1 " He was one of the most distinguished belle-lettrists of his class, and wrote with far more facility and sprightliness than the generality of its mem bers." At all events, five days after the above publication there appeared on Monday, March 17, 1806, in the Independent Chroni cle, a Boston Democratic newspaper, an anonymous communication, signed " Decius," addressed to " Major General Simon Elliot," violently attacking him for his part in Cap tain Loring's court martial. This communi cation was written by William Austin and was the immediate cause of the duel. I give it in full: " To Major General Simon Elliot. " Sir, The following letter will command your whole attention, and either rouse your pride and self love to a proper tone, or sink you in your own estimation below contempt. There frequently occurs a moment, and that moment is the present, when the oppressor and the oppressed meet on equal terms; a moment always fearful to the oppressor. Such a moment happened to Caligula, and more recently to Marat. Do not turn away from the comparison; it is not derogatory. You 1 In " Memories of Youth and Manhood " ; quoted before. [35] are not superior to the one in courage, nor to the other in ability. Neither of these men ever exerted their whole power in a more earnest manner than you have the petty au thority with which you are invested ; so that you are perfectly known, if not ex pede Her- culem, at least by your carriage in the trap pings in which the blindest chance ever ar rayed a Major General. But be not alarmed, Sir, you are, in spite of yourself, in a free country and secure except from the indigna tion of your injured fellow citizens. The abhorrence is the only punishment to which you are subject. No personal danger will happen to Major General Elliot, unless the veteran chooses to run into it. " No man ever held a more disinterested pen than the one who now addresses you. Biassed by no party, aloof from all intrigues both of a political and military nature, at a distance from the Capital, subject to no Turk ish mandate and fearful of no Janizaries, though fully intelligent in what passes in the military cabinet in town, I hold my pen to acquit a public duty; I raise my voice in sup port of public right, and in the name of an injured community I shall be heard. It is not the cause of the town of Boston only, it is the cause of every man in the Common wealth on whom the Constitution has imposed military subjection. It is not the cause of Capt. Loring that I espouse; I have no ac quaintance with that gentleman. But when an injured citizen cannot obtain redress from the Commander in Chief, and in the last [36] resort is abandoned by the legislature, the public is the only judge. " It is an evil, Sir, common to every form of government, the republican as well as the despotic, that offices are sometimes filled in the manner that a certain Roman Emperor once filled the Consular office. Indeed, in time of peace, when the uniform makes the officer, when capacity is never questioned, and when courage is courteously presumed, it matters not who are Major Generals so long as they assume nothing. Therefore, Sir, though vanity inspired you to become a Major General, had you carried yourself modestly the trappings of your office had still been sacred and your merit and honors un molested. Pity it is that the first notice you have ever attracted should lay you bare to an inspection that will not only discover your airy nothingness and pompous imbecility which might long have passed current among counterfeits; but will not leave you in that condition which of all men you ought most to have avoided, and from the responsibility of which you will call in vain on your main pillar, the Governor, to release you. " It was certainly an evil genius which im pelled you to enter the lists of federalism. Of all men you are the most helpless in such a case. You can neither attack nor retreat; you are a fixed character, as much so as a man in chains. What then could induce you to outrage the feelings and the honor of your fellow citizens in the manner you have? What could induce you to trample on the [37] Constitution, which if you despise, you ought at least to understand? What, Sir, could in duce you to do a wilful and unprovoked in jury >to an officer in all respects except rank, equal to yourself? Your setters on will never dare shew their faces. They have deceived the Governor and will betray you. Do not imagine, Sir, that the shameful, unprece dented conduct of which you have been guilty is supposed to be your own deliberate act. No, Sir, your character, when left to itself, is entirely innocent; it is scarcely a subject of responsibility. But, miserably for you, baf fled in their base attempts which betrayed the secrets of hospitality and the evening fireside, they have in the last resort made you the re pository of their impotent vengeance. And you, Sir, regardless of the Constitution and forgetful of the feelings of a gentleman, have submitted to take this public chastisement to gratify the malice of those whom we have reason to believe hate the very name of * Peo ple, Freedom and Constitution! " Are you so weak, Sir, as to think that a fellow citizen, though subaltern to you in rank, yea, though a private, is not in every other respect your equal? How then, Sir, dare you attempt to establish a precedent not less injurious to the public than degrading to the individual whom you have so oppressed and insulted? A real man, Sir, in a country like this, is too self-supported and too cautious of his own and the rights of others to give or receive a deliberate insult; and policy ought to have dictated that the public would not see [38] an individual dishonored by you without the keenest resentment; for your military honors are all by courtesy and unreal as the dreams of your own importance; and that very au thority which you have so arbitrarily exerted flows, in spite of you, from the people. " Presuming that you are now impressed with a true sentiment of your own real weight in society, I proceed to exhibit to you and to an indignant public the first consequential act of your public life. You, Major General Simon Elliot, not indeed unadvisedly, but supported by your irresponsible friends, for getful of your official duties and those of a citizen, ambitious of bearing down and des troying an obnoxious individual, have con temptuously holden 'him under arrest a most unreasonable and protracted length of time after he ought to have known his sentence. And although the arrested officer, cautious of the duties of a good citizen and soldier, re spectfully addressed you to inform him of his sentence after waiting anxiously a due time, you contemptuously neglected from that date to this either to reveal his sentence or notice his request! Is this true or is it false? If false, I call upon you in the name of every freeman of this Commonwealth to do your self justice; or if unable to justify yourself, I will do it for you, But if it is true, both you and your advisers shall answer it to the public. You cannot conceal, Sir, the motives of this conduct; they are too notorious to be disguised. An odious spirit of oppression has governed the conductors of the trial of Capt. [39] Loring, otherwise they never would have sought evidence against him from the un guarded moments of friendship, from the convivial frankness of a domestic evening; no, Sir, the honorable feelings of Capt. But- terfield could never have been enlisted by the coercive measures of an oath to betray the secrets of the hospitable fire hearth. De cency, as well as the security of domestic in tercourse, ought to have forbidden such a shameful breach of the first law of social life. Yet, to the honor of Capt. Loring, he suffered nothing in the result. " Not satisfied with the protracted, expen sive and ruinous trial of an innocent man whom all men suppose to have been acquitted with honour, you, Sir, since the imbecile vio lence of your subaltern could go no further, in the true spirit of a little soul have still kept him under arrest; and when respectfully ad dressed you have refused him the first duty of a gentleman; and when your own illegal and tyrannical conduct was manifest, and when the Commander in Chief, whose office it was to have issued peremptory orders to you, was addressed, the Governor, with regret I say it, regardless of the sufferings of his fellow citizen, added a double weight to your own insult. " Do you know, Sir, that every moment you have thus contemptuously holden Capt. Lor ing under arrest is false imprisonment for which yourself ought to be arrested? What precedents, Sir, will you dare to establish next? If the legislature, cautious of med- [40] dling in your official concerns, will not hear, and if the Governor approve, the honor, the interest, and the liberty of no man in the County of Suffolk is secure from your tyr anny. You have only to mark the man, and if his circumstances are not affluent, he is ruined. You have only to cry mutiny, and a citizen is arrested and kept under arrest during your Turkish pleasure. You have only to imagine a fellow citizen ill disposed to you, and every measure he can adopt, how ever respectful, is only a new motive of con tempt. Thank God, this would be tolerated in no County in the Commonwealth except Suffolk. A soldier's honor ought to be dearer to him than his life, his feelings ought to be of the noblest cast, the opinion of his own dignity ought to be the public opinion, and it is for the public interest that the soldier should be treated as the protector of the Comr monwealth. Who, Sir, would protect you in the time of actual danger, your own sword, or that of another man? Who, Sir, would protect your interest in the moment of plun der, when perhaps you had fled and forsaken it? If you think it possible that a soldier can be a gentleman, if he is confessedly the sup port of everything most dear to a freeman, do you think the people of Massachusetts, the jealous yeomanry of this free state, will per mit the oppression of a worthy officer, let who will dare to establish the precedent? It is the cause, Sir, of the whole, and I speak in be half of every freeman in the state; for the degradation of the soldier in a free country [41] is the first step to tyranny. Preserve the sol dier's honor, reverence him, cover him with laurel when he merits it, reward him like Eaton, and he will become not only an orna ment to his country in time of war, but the best of citizens in the time of peace; for the responsibility which a man takes to himself is the pole star of his conduct. On the con trary, hold him in jeopardy of his honor, his interest, and his liberty, and let these be sac rificed at pleasure on the altar which you have reared in Boston, and the soldier is at once no longer worthy either to protect or enjoy freedom. This is the point to which you and your Janizaries would doubtless be happy to reduce the people of this Common wealth; but know, Sir, you are not a man destined to do any good or much harm, other wise than as your setters on may push you beyond their own responsibility. " DECIUS. " [My real name may be had at the pub lishers', if Gen. Elliot appears in person to obtain it] " This attack on General Elliot was prob ably written from Concord, Massachusetts, where Austin was attending court, for he says that he is " at a distance from the Capital " ; and we know from his letter to his second, Mr. Sumner, that he was in Concord on the morning succeeding the publication of the [42] attack. The Independent Chronicle and its subscribers doubtless considered the attack as all very proper and just. The Federalists, on the contrary, took the opposite view. The Boston Gazette (Federalist) of March 20, 1806, spoke of the " infamous attack in the Chronicle on Gen. Elliot," that it was a wretched and deplorable state of society when individuals could " with impunity calumni ate the fairest and most amiable characters, and through the medium of a licentious press endeavor to blast at once the well earned reputation of a life of honor and virtue." [43] IV The Challenge and Acceptance THERE is no doubt that General Elliot was much incensed at the " Decius " article and that he at once took advantage of the post script to ascertain the " real name " of the writer. There is some authority for saying that after learning this fact, and on the very same day, he met Austin on Court Street, Boston, assaulted him, and was worsted in the encounter. If this is a fact, Austin must have left Concord for Boston, returning to Con cord that evening. Some color, moreover, is given to this story by certain memoranda written by Austin himself relating to the events leading up to the duel, wherein he vaguely refers to a certain " assault " which General Elliot had made on him the day of the " Decius " publication. 1 It is evident that General Elliot, after as certaining who " Decius " was, within a few 1 See Appendix C for these memoranda. [44] hours certainly, communicated the fact to his son, James Henderson Elliot, who now en ters the scene for the first time as a principal in the affair and the upholder of his father's honor. Young Elliot, according to the code of the duello, immediately sought out his friend, Henry Sargent, to carry a challenge to Aus tin. So quickly did events move that Sargent, travelling either by horseback or stage, ar rived at Concord the next morning after the " Decius " publication, March i8th, and de livered his message to Austin at the Court House. Perhaps I might state here that young Elliot's determination to fight Austin must have been soon known in Boston, for the latter received a letter from his friend, Sum- ner, at Concord, March 191)1, offering his services in any trouble which might arise. Austin's reply to Suimner of the same date, the original of which is in the present writer's possession, is the best evidence of what took place in Concord between Austin and Sar gent. 1 1 This letter, together with Elliot's acceptance of Austin's terms and other memoranda (see later) relating to the duel, were recently found by me among some of my father's old papers in an envelope endorsed with the words " Relating to the Duel, Wm. Austin," in the handwriting of the Hon. Arthur W. Austin, eldest son of William Austin. [45] "CONCORD, March i9th, 1806. " My dear fellow, " Your letter which I have this moment re ceived is highly grateful to my feelings, for I am really in want of your kindest offices. I feel perfectly secure from any dishonorable attack; for the disgrace attending it is my sufficient protection. " I have to request you, and I should have made this request had you not written me, to provide a pair of as good pistols as you can procure, and if possible, try them, with some confidential friend. If you ask wherefore? I have to tell you that Mr. Henry Sargent called me out of the Court House yesterday morning with a message from young Elliot. I perceived he had a weapon, and before I went out I asked him in a low voice if he was alone? He said yes, we then walked and had considerable conversation. He first opened upon me with young Elliot's expecta tion that I would give him the satisfaction of a gentleman. I told him by all means, that I expected to hear from him and commended his filial conduct. He then told me that it was Elliot's determination that one of us should fall. I told him that depended on himself (Elliot), that I presumed young Elliot was a brave man and was in the habit of believing every man brave until he proved the contrary. He then replied that Gen. Elliot's friends highly disapproved my con duct, and that it was their general opinion that I was much to blame. I told him what I had done was a deliberate act, that it was [46] passed, and I would support it, and though the responsibility was personal, the hazard was in behalf of an indignant and injured community. He then spoke of an apology and acknowledgment. I told him that was impossible. He said it would not be degra ding. I told him I always suffered most when I injured the feelings of another, that I had before that asked pardon of those whom I was convinced I had illtreated, and on all occasions was ready to do it; but that in the present case, though I did not see how young Elliot could consistently with filial respect act otherwise, yet for myself, if I had an hundred lives I would give them all in the present cause, for it was apparent that what I had done was a deliberate act and I was per suaded of my own open, undisguised and proper conduct. " I then told him I was sorry he had called on me in that open manner, as it might create suspicion. He said he would guard against that; and I then told him it was impossible for me consistent with my obligations to others to leave Concord instantly, and with my reasons he acquiesced. I told him I would bespeak the good offices of a confiden tial friend who would on Sunday or Monday at furthest wait on him (at the corner of Essex Street he lives) and that it would be most agreeable to me to go to Rhode Island, or anywhere out of the State, which he like wise thought most prudent. We then respect fully parted. " Thus you see, my dear fellow, that your [47] assistance is indispensably necessary, and though I have thought of several, on whom I have small claims, yet I had chosen you on whom I had no claim in the present case, on account of your holding a commission under the Major Genl. I am convinced it is a point of delicacy, on acc't of your military situation, and therefore I beg you to consider of it But be so good as to procure the pis tols Those which I own, my mother, I sup pose, has hid them, and I have not seen them this year. " Yours &c., "WM. AUSTIN. " Excuse this paper, it is the best I could get." This letter addressed to " My dear fellow " doubtless meant Mr. Sumner. We know Sumner was Austin's second, probably an intimate friend of his, being two years his senior in college, and this is just such a letter as one would have addressed to his second on the eve of a duel. Furthermore, the letter refers to " your holding a commission under the Major Genl." and Sumner was a Lieuten ant in the Boston Regiment. This straightforward, manly letter states Austin's position clearly. There is no shrink ing from the encounter, but a prompt accept- [48] ance of the challenge. What he had done was a deliberate act for which he held him self wholly responsible. In addition to the above letter there are some other notes and memoranda referring to this meeting at Concord, written by William Austin, probably at some time prior to the duel, and possibly for the purpose of refresh ing his recollection at some later period. 1 I give them in full : " On Tuesday morning, 18 March, 1806, Mr. Austin being in the Court House at Con cord attending his professional business, Mr. Henry Sargent (brother of the one who yes terday attended Gen. Elliot) called him out and said ' Mr. J. H. E., the son of Gen. E., is chagrined with the treatment which his father yesterday reed, from you, and expects you will meet him and give him the satisfac tion of a gentleman. My name is Henry Sar gent; I live in Essex Street in Boston & am authorized by Mr. J. H. E. to call on you with this message from him/ " Mr. A. then said ' I shall be indispensably occupied by professional duties till the Court rises, but Mr. Elliot shall not be disappointed in his expectations. The Court will probably rise on Saturday the 22 March. I shall then make my arrangements for meeting Mr. El liot, and they shall be communicated to you 1 They are in the handwriting of William Austin and were found in the same envelope with the letter to Sumner. [49] by some confidential hand as early as Mon day next the 24th of March.' ' Following is the way the notes were first written, but crossed out and above substituted : "On Tuesday morning, 18 March, 1806, Mr. Austin being in the Court House at Con cord attending his professional business, Mr. Henry Sargent (brother of the one who yes terday attended Gen. Elliot) called Mr. Aus tin out of the Court House and delivered him a message from Mr. James Henderson Elliot. This message contrary to all precedent was a verbal message by a person unknown to Mr. Austin. Had it been in writing it would have been in purport as follows : 1 MR. WILLIAM AUSTIN, * SIR, I cannot live under the thought of the treatment which my father yesterday re ceived from your hand. I have the character and feelings of a gentleman; I am convinced you are one, & request you will give me an opportunity to take your life. 'JAMES HENDERSON ELLIOT. ' BOSTON, Tuesday morning, 6 o'clock, 18 March, 1806.'" [50] Terms and Conditions of the Duel WE have now seen from the letter to Sum- ner and the other memoranda what occurred in Concord between Austin and Sargent (Elliot's second), the challenge was given and promptly accepted. Austin promised Sargent that a friend of his would wait on him not later than the following Monday, March 24th, to arrange terms, and that it would be agreeable for him to fight either in Rhode Island or some other state. It is fair to presume that Sumner, acting for Austin, waited on Sargent on the 24th of March, and presented the following terms and conditions of the duel, which had been drawn up either by Austin or Sumner, 1 and were accepted by Elliot on the same day: " Mr. A. will meet Mr. E. with a brace of pistols on the borders of a neighboring state, this day week at sunrise. 1 In the same envelope with the other papers. The hand writing is similar to Austin's, though Sumner may have writ ten them. [51] " Mr. E. shall elect the particular spot; and Mr. A. shall elect position. The spot shall be made known to Mr. A. by Thursday evening 7 o'clock. " The position shall be chosen by Mr. A . after the ground is marked off and seen by each party. "Mr. A. will exchange 2 shots with Mr. E. at 12 or i o paces distance as Mr. E. shall please. " Both parties shall fire at the same time & by word of Command. " The pistols fired at once, shall be alike, and loaded alike with one ball each. " Whatever may be the kind of pistols which either party carries on to the ground his antagonist shall have his choice of them. "The pistols of Mr. E., the challenger, shall be fired first and if neither party is wounded or satisfied the pistols of Mr. A., the challenged, shall then be fired. " The participation of pistols is proposed in order to render the hazard as equal as possi ble ; & in some degree to take away the supe riority which practice may have given to the one over the other. " After the ground is marked off, and the parties have taken their position, the second of Mr. E. the challenger shall give the first word of command in the following manner. He shall ask the parties ' are you ready ' if both parties answer ' yes ' he shall say * present ' ' fire ' pausing a second be tween the words. " If the first fire should not prove satisfac- [52] tory, nor wound either of the parties in such a manner as to induce him to decline a second shot, the second of Mr. A. shall then ask the parties ' are you ready ' if both parties an swer ' yes ' he shall then say * present ' * fire ' pausing a second between the words. " Neither party shall hold more than one pistol at a time. When the first brace is fired, each second shall go to his principal, receive his discharged pistol, & give him the other that is charged. " There shall be only 2 pair of pistols car ried on to the ground. Neither of the sec onds shall hold more than one pistol, and that solely for the use of his principal; during the first fire the pistols in the hands of the seconds shall be loaded; during the second fire they shall not be loaded. The seconds shall each of them stand from the other at the same distance at which the principals stand, each second on the right hand of his principal, equally distant from both parties; on a line drawn at right angles over the centre of the line of fire. " The strictest silence possible shall be pre served on the ground, which shall not be in terrupted except by the second giving the word of command; or by one second speak ing to the other second or to his own prin cipal. " Mr. A. entertaining no inimical feelings towards Mr. E. does not conceive himself in honor bound to expose his own life or that of Mr. E. to any greater hazard than is here offered, especially as Mr. A. does not hold [53] himself particularly responsible to Mr. E. while superior claims may with more pro priety be urged against him by another; and as it is wholly from motives of delicacy to Mr. E. that Mr. A. has consented to consider him a party in this affair. Although the act of Mr. A. at which Mr. E. has taken offense was a deliberate act for which Mr. A. cannot at present offer any other satisfaction than what is here offered it is not impossible but that the measures, to which Genl. E. is having recourse may place matters in a different light from that in which Mr. A. has hitherto viewed them ; in which case he will be proud to make any acknowledgment that circumstances may then render proper, and to say or do everything which any gentleman of honorable feelings can wish or expect of another." " I accept of the above proposal of Wm. Austin Esqr. " JAMES HENDERSON ELLIOT. "BOSTON, March 24, 1806." We see by the last paragraph that Austin has offered an opportunity for a reconcilia tion, but no headway was made in this direc tion. Both parties in the meantime got ready for the encounter, and the place and time of the meeting and other details were arranged. Did the parents of the two young men know what was about to take place? Probably they [54] " did, and we can imagine their feelings. Miss Mary Elliot Torrey remembers her mother (General Elliot's daughter) telling her how the General paced his room back and forth for hours at a time, after the principals had started for the duelling ground, waiting for news from his only son. And what were the feelings of Austin's fiancee, Miss Charlotte Williams, daughter of Dr. Isaac Williams? 1 1 They were married in Roxbury, June 19, 1806, less than three months after the duel. [55] VI / The Duel THE duel was fought at sunrise, Monday morning, March 31, 1806, a week after Elli ot's acceptance of Austin's terms. The field of combat was Cold Spring, Rhode Island, now a part of Providence. Cold Spring was between Pitman and Waterman Streets, close to Pitman, and between East River Street and Bellevue Street. Fifteen years ago the spring was filled up. It used to flow into " Round Cove." l It is likely that both principals with their seconds set out by stage from Boston to Prov idence on Sunday, March 3Oth, the trip ta king about five and a half hours. Probably they all spent the night in Providence, and met at the agreed spot at sunrise next morning. In regard to the duel itself, I have been 1 The information in regard to Cold Spring is from the Librarian of the Rhode Island Historical Society. [56] unable to find any reference in the contem porary Boston papers, the whole affair prob ably being kept secret on account of the se- .vere laws in Massachusetts against duelling. However, two of the Providence papers give brief accounts of it, in both of which, curi- .ously enough, William Austin is erroneously Called " Charles Austin." Probably the af fair was kept as much of a secret in Rhode Island 1 as in Boston and the mistake is nat ural, especially as after the duel all hands immediately returned to Boston, without im parting much information. The names of the other parties are given correctly. These two newspaper accounts of the duel are the only ones I can find which go into details to any extent. From the Providence Gazette of Saturday, April 5, 1806: " Duel " On Monday morning last a duel was fought at Cold Spring, in the vicinity of this town, between Mr. James Elliot and Mr. Charles Austin, of Boston. 2 The seconds were, Mr. Sargent for Mr. Elliot, and Mr. Sumner for Mr. Austin. The combatants in- 1 The laws against duelling in Rhode Island were not very severe. See Appendix D. 2 The residence is also erroneously given. [57] tended exchanging three shots, at ten paces distant. On the first fire, Mr. Austin's pistol flashed, and Mr. Elliot's ball wounded Mr. Austin in the neck. On the second, Mr. Aus tin was again wounded in the thigh. The third fire did not take effect. The parties immediately quitted the ground, and set out on their return for Boston. Mr. Austin's wounds we are happy to learn are not dan gerous. Gross abuse offered to the father of Mr. Elliot is said to have led to this serious business." From the Providence Phoenix of Saturday, April 5, 1806: " Duel. On Monday morning last a duel was fought at Cold Spring, in the vicinity of this town, between Mr. Charles Austin, of Charlestown, and Mr. James Elliot, of Bos ton the seconds were, Mr. Sumner for Mr. A. and Mr. Sargent for Mr. E. distance 10 paces. The parties exchanged three shots. The first round Mr. A.'s pistol flashed, Mr. E. fired and wounded Mr. A. in the neck; the second round they both fired and Mr. A. was wounded in the thigh; the third round had no effect. The parties immediately retired from the field for Boston. We understand Mr. A's wounds are not dangerous." In the Providence Phoenix of April 19, 1806, less than three weeks after the duel, is the brief story of a " Philosophic Duel " in [58] the Austrian Netherlands. At the close oc curs the following paragraph: " If our countrymen, instead of sacrificing each other in the first heat of passion, would lay up their resentments in the drawer of calm reflection for a few weeks, points of honour might be adjusted without a single blow, and the bloody sacrifices too frequently offered on the altars of pride and revenge, be converted into ties of benevolence and good will." Were these reflections probably suggested by the Austin-Elliot duel? As evidence of the bitter feeling between Austin and Elliot three shots apiece were fired, instead of two as the articles of agree ment called for. Moreover, Austin was wounded in each of the first two exchanges, and as blood had been shed the seconds could have intervened with perfect propriety either time and declared " honor satisfied " ; but the principals, doubtless in their heat, insisted on a third exchange. Probably this bitter feel ing disappeared shortly afterwards, as both were brave and honorable men and fought for their honor as they saw it. Young Elliot unhappily died two years later at the age of twenty-five; and as I stated in the Preface, Austin, my grandfather, deeply regretted the [59] whole affair and rarely, if ever, alluded to it to his children. In closing I hope that this account of an affair of honor, 108 years ago, between two brave gentlemen, may be of in terest to their descendants and relatives. [60] APPENDIX Publications referring to the Austin-Elliot duel " The Hundred Boston Orators," by James Spear Loring, 1852, pages 328, 329. Article on Charles Pinckney Sumner: "About the year 1805, when political ex citement was warm, William Austin of the Democratic party, author of * Letters from London/ in consequence of political differ ences with Gen. Simon Elliott, in the Chron icle, over ' Decius,' was challenged by James H., son of the General. Mr. Sumner was the second for Mr. Austin, and the field of com bat was in Rhode Island. One of the parties, Mr. Austin, was slightly wounded by a pistol shot. Mr. Sumner deeply regretted having taken a part in this conflict, and the subject was unknown to his children until after his decease." Duyckinck's " Cyclopaedia of American Literature," 1855, pages 658, 659, speaking of William Austin: [61] " About the year 1805 we ^ ear f Austin's being engaged in a duel with James H. El liott, growing out of a political newspaper altercation. The duel was fought in Rhode Island, and Austin was slightly wounded." " Notes on Duels and Duelling," by Lo renzo Sabine, Boston, 1859; 3rd edition, page 318: "Austin, William, and James H. Elliott. In Rhode Island about the year 1805, with pistols. Elliott gave the challenge. Both were Massachusetts gentlemen, and, I sup pose, citizens of Boston. The difference was political, and grew out of a newspaper dis cussion between Austin and the father of El liott. Austin was wounded, but Elliott es caped unhurt. Charles Pinckney Sumner (father of Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator in Congress from Massachusetts), who became subsequently sheriff of the County of Suffolk, was the second of the latter. 1 Mr. Sumner deeply regretted having taken part in this conflict, and the subject was unknown to his children until after his decease." Pamphlet including the story of " Peter Rugg, the Missing Man," published at Worcester; Franklin P. Rice, publisher, 1882: " In 1805, in consequence of a misunder standing growing out of a political contest, 1 Error. Sumner was Austin's second. [62] Austin engaged in a duel with James H. Elliot and was slightly wounded. The affair took place in Rhode Island, and Austin's second was Charles Pinckney Sumner, father of Charles Sumner." Bunker Hill Times, August 2, 1884: " He [William Austin] was a graceful and vigorous writer, and his political articles were written with much force. In conse quence of these articles he fought a duel, in 1806, with James H. Elliot, having for his second the Hon. Charles P. Sumner, the father of the late Senator Sumner." " A Precursor of Hawthorne," by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, in The Independent, March 29, 1888: " [Austin] was wounded in a duel, fought in Rhode Island, with James H. Elliott." " A Library of American Literature," by Stedman and Hutchinson, New York, 1890: "About 1805 Austin fought a duel with James H. Elliot, the result of a newspaper controversy, and was slightly wounded." " Old Charlestown," by Timothy T. Saw yer; Boston, 1902: " In 1805 he [William Austin] was wounded in a duel with James H. Elliot, the trouble growing out of a political newspaper altercation." [63] " Stories New and Old," by Hamilton W. Mabie; New York, 1908. Introduction to " Peter Rugg, the Missing Man ": " His [Austin's] activities in politics is sug gested by the fact that early in the last cen tury he was wounded in a duel, the culmina tion of a political quarrel." B George T. Little, Esq., Librarian of Bow- doin College, writes: " All that I know about James Henderson Elliot, who received the degree of A. M. ad eundem here in 1806 is that he was born n July, 1782, at Boston, Mass.; graduated at Harvard, 1802, received an A.M. in course there in 1805, an ^ died 20 April, 1808. He was probably one of the group of young men who came from Boston with the Governor to attend our First Commencement which was a great gala day for the District of Maine, at least in literary circles." On the same paper with the other memo randa written by William Austin (see page 49), referring to the meeting between Austin and Sargent at Concord, is this statement in Austin's handwriting (quoting Sargent), suggesting a certain assault by General Elliot [64] on Austin on the day of the " Decius " pub lication : " Mr. J. H. E., the son of Gen. E., cannot live under the thought of the treatment which his father rec'd yesterday from your hands is resolved to kill or assault you as his father the Gen. did yes, 1 unless you will meet him and give him the satisfaction of a gentleman." Interlined in the above and crossed out is this : " names the Gen.'s assault on you." D Providence Gazette, May 31, 1800: " For the Providence Gazette " As the pernicious practice of duelling seems to be a growing evil in the United States, and many people seem not to have raised in their minds that abhorrence which ought to be felt by every citizen who wishes to be the friend of humanity and his country; and as evil examples are catching, you are requested to publish the following sections from the laws of this State, as lately revised, under the head CRIMES, for the prevention thereof. "A. " Sec. 17. And be it further enacted, That every person who shall voluntarily and from 1 Probably means " yesterday." [65] malice, displeasure, fury or revenge, engage in a duel with sword and pistol, or other dan gerous weapon, to the hazard of life, al though death doth not ensue thereby, shall be carried publicly in a cart to the gallows, with a rope about his neck, and set thereon for the space of one hour, with a rope about his neck as aforesaid, and be imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year, or shall suffer either or both said penalties, at the discretion of the Court. " Sec. 27. And be it further enacted, That every person who shall challenge another, by word, message, or any other way, to fight a duel, or who shall accept a challenge, though no duel be fought, or shall any way abet, prompt, encourage or seduce any person to fight a duel, or to challenge another to fight, shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding six months." [66] INDEX Abbott, John, 16 Ames, Fisher, 31 Ames, Nathaniel, 31 Austin, Arthur W., 45 Austin, Benjamin, 31 Austin, Charles, 31 Austin, James W., 17, 18 Austin, Nathaniel, 14 Austin, William, Preface, 13- 18, 26, 27, 34, 35, 42, 45, 48- 59, 61-65 Barker, Lieut. Col. John, 31 Barnard, Eliza, 19 Barnes, Capt. William, 31 Bass, Lieut. George, 32 Brazer, Capt. John, 30 Buckingham, Joseph T., 16 Burr, Aaron, 13 Butterfield, Capt., 40 Cabot, Charles M., Preface Cabot, Harry, 23 Cabot, James Elliot, Preface, 19, 20, 22 Cabot, Mrs. Samuel, 22, 23 Channing, Rev., 26 Clark, Maj. Barnabas, 31 Davis, Capt. Charles, 32 [67] Davis, General, 25 Donnison, General, 25 Eaton, 42 Elliot, Elizabeth, 19, 21 Elliot, James Henderson, Preface, 13, 19, 20-26, 45, 46, 48, 50-65 Elliot, Sarah Wilson, 19 Elliot, Gen. Simon, Preface, 13, 18-23, 27, 29, 30, 32-44, 46-50, 54, 55, 61, 62, 64, 65 Fay, Samuel P. P., 16 Fisher, Lieut. Lewis, 32 Fiske, Isaac, 16 French, Jr., Lieut Elisha, 32 Gardner, General, 25 Gardner, Henry, 16 Hamilton, Alexander, 13 Harding, Chester, 20 Harris, Capt. Michael, 31 Higginson, Thomas Went- worth, 18, 63 Johonnot, Major Oliver, 31 Kinsley, Capt. Adam, 31 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Book SHp-70m-9,'65(F7151s4)458 - T *J l-f- \J U Austin, W. A forgotten duel. E340 A87 A88 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS