forsooth, Douglas democrats, when it is known, well known to them and to us, that the gallant senator from Illinois, whose voice has always been heard in the advocacy of democratic principles, who now is not disunited from the democratic party, has no affiliation with them, no feeling in common with them. Perhaps I am mistaken in their right to claim Douglas as their leader. Perhaps they do sail under the flag of DouQjlas, but it is the banner of the black Douo;las, whose name is Frederick, not Stephen."
These and other remarks of like nature were printed in the Sacramento papers, and copied generally throughout the state, Broderick read them next morning while at breakfast at the International Hotel, and very naturally broke out in a fit of violent personalities against Terry. It happened that D. W. Perley, friend and former law partner of Terry, was seated at the table near Broderick, and heard what he said. Perley claimed that Broderick's remarks were directed to him; at all events he replied to them, and Broderick retorted. Women being present at the table, Perley withdrew, and soon after sent Broderick a challenge.
Under date of June 29th, Broderick wrote in reply to Perley that the publicity of the affair, if for no other cause, prohibited a hostile meeting. Other reasons, however, did exist which placed it beyond the power of Broderick to give the satisfaction demanded. Within the past few days Perley had made oath that he was a subject of Great Britain, and at the time of the alleged insult and in the presence of gentlemen the writer had said that he could not accept a challenge from one who had no political rights to be affected by Indulgence in the practise of the code. " For many years," continued Broderick, "and up to the time of my elevation to the position I now occupy, it was well known that I would not have avoided any issue of the character proposed. If compelled to accept a challenge, it could only be
