In a former number, I quoted a sentiment, attributed, by Boswell, to Dr. Johnson, and which, I suppose, was no deliberate conviction of his, but uttered, in the course of his dinner-table talk, for the gratification of Gen. Oglethorpe, "_Men have agreed to banish from society, a man, who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel_." This is not asserted, as an independent averment, but assumed or taken for granted, as the basis of the argument, such as it was. Is this a fact? Cannot cases innumerable be stated, to prove, that it is not? The words, ascribed to Dr. Johnson, are not confined to any class or profession, but are of universal application. Have men agreed to banish from society every man, who refuses to fight a duel, when summoned to that refreshing amusement? Let us examine a few cases. General Jackson did not lose caste, because he omitted to challenge Randolph, for pulling his nose. Josiah Quincy was not banished from society, for refusing the challenge of a Southern Hotspur. I believe, that Judge Thacher, of Maine, would have been much less respected, had he gone out to be shot, when invited, than he ever has been, for the very sensible answer to his antagonist, that he would talk to Mrs. Thacher about it, and be guided by her opinion. Nobody ever supposed, that Judge Breckenridge suffered, in character or standing, because he told his challenger, that he _wouldn't come_; but, that he might sketch his, the Judge's, figure, on a board, and fire at that, till he was weary, at any distance he pleased; and if he hit it, upon a certificate of the fact, the Judge would agree to it. Had Hamilton refused the challenge of Burr, his _deliberate murderer_, his fame would have remained untarnished--his countrymen would never have forgotten the 14th of October, 1781--the charge of that advanced corps--the fall of Yorktown! On his death-bed, Hamilton expressed his abhorrence of the practice; and solemnly declared, should he survive, never to be engaged in another duel. "_Pendleton knows_," said he, in a dying hour, referring to Burr, and addressing Dr. Hossack, "_that I did not intend to fire at him_." How different from the blood-thirsty purposes of his assassin! In vol. x. of Jeremy Bentham's works, pages 432-3, the reader will find a letter from Dumont to Bentham, in which the Frenchman says, referring to a conversation with Burr, in 1808, four years after the duel--"_His duel with Hamilton was a savage affair_:" and Bentham adds--"_He gave me an account of his duel with Hamilton; he was sure of being able to kill him, so I thought it little better than murder_."