Gallant Etiquette: Army vs Navy

“Dueling is distinctly frowned upon by the general staff of the United States army, of which General Bell is chief. A mere bloodless question of preсеdence at the breakfast table in the dining car stirred the excitement between the general and the naval officer. The clarion porter shouted his way through the Pullmans with the happy announcing, ‘First call, for breakfast.’”– 1907 Pullman Dining Car Interior Postcard

ARMY AND NAVY IN SHARP CLASH OVER GALLANTRY

• Army Officer Offers Satisfaction Either Officially or in Unofficial Manner
• Enlivening Episode Occurs on Southbound Train From Portland Yesterday
• Major General J. Franklin Bell, Chief of Staff, Gives Naval Officers Stinging Rebuke
• Lesson in Etiquette as to Precedence at Breakfast in Pullman Diner

ARMY vs. Navy, clashing over gallantry. Major General J. Franklin Bell, chief of staff, U. S. A., rebuking a reputed naval officer for rushing out of turn into a Pullman diner was the elevating lesson in comparative chivalry expounded for the edification of passengers on Southern Pacific train No. 13, southbound from Portland, yesterday morning between Davis and Benicia. The honors went to the fighting man ashore, while the fighting man afloat lowered his lance in token of submission to the teachings that women should first be given places in the diner,

General Bell's pupil in etiquette came to this city and registered at the Hotel Argonaut as "W., C. Read, city." On the train he told General Bell that he was a naval officer, but the naval register contains no such name as "W. C. Read." Perhaps the knight is a raw niddy, graduated from the naval academy since the naval register was published. Read's companion in the episode was E. R. McBlair of Washington, D. C.

Fighting Talk, This

The fact is that when Read was reрrimanded by the general of the army he declared himself to be a naval officer, and General Bell then said, "If you take offense at my action, you know how to get satisfaction from me, officially or unofficially."

The "unofficially", is a pregnant phrase, coming from one fighting man to another. What it might have implied can not be surmised without a shudder. Dueling is distinctly frowned upon by the general staff of the United States army, of which General Bell is chief. A mere bloodless question of preсеdence at the breakfast table in the dining car stirred the excitement between the general and the naval officer. The clarion porter shouted his way through the Pullmans with the happy announcing, "First call, for breakfast."

Out of Their Turn

There was a string of passengers in the passageway leading into the diner. Read and McBlair hustled through, out of order. They paved their way with the announcement that they were not hurrying forward to secure choice seats at the first table they were going into the tourist car to meet two women. So they were graciously permitted to pass on. But when General Bell and the other loiterers in the passageway finally reached the tables they found Read and McBlair seated in comfort.

The gallant General Bell could not stand for the precipitation of the young men. He told them that the two seats they occupied belonged by right to two young women who had long been waiting their turn in line. The young men were conscience smitten. General Bell regarded them with acute displeasure.

Conductor Butts In

Then the Pullman conductor heaved to in the affray between the army and navy. "I'm running this car," he insisted to General Bell, "and I'll attend to these things."

"These two American hogs were trying to grab seats that did not belong to them, and I intend to see that they are not able to do it," replied. General Bell.

"If you interfere any more with the running of this car I will stop the train and put you off," said the conductor.

"That would be very satisfactory to me," said the chief of staff. "I am General Bell, chief of staff of the United States army, and it would please me very much to be put off this train."

The conductor began to apologize. but General Bell stopped him, declaring that he should not be treated with any, more courtesy because he was an officer of the army than if he were a civilian passenger.

No Apology Coming

Read was not calmed by the disclosure of his rebuker's identity. He went to the general. "I heard you make some remark about American hogs," he said. "That does not sound like General Bell. But I'll accept your explanation."

"I want you to understand I am not apologizing." declared General Bell. "I don't consider that I have any apology to make.

McBlair was seen at the St. Francis hotel last evening. "The incident," he said, "was due to a mistake. We went into a forward car to see some ladies. When we returned the head waiter seated us and thoughtlessly we took our places. We did not mean to be seated out of our turn." – San Francisco Call, 1909

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

The Etiquette of Twin Coat Buttons

“If you put their inception back into the time when the big square art embroidered and gorgeously lined overcoats were worn, two centuries ago, and when the gallants of the time were wont to go forth on dress parade with the sword at the side and ready to resent any informality of etiquette, you will find that in order to reach the side arm more readily the skirts of the coat were turned back in a reverse shaped way and buttoned or looped upon two buttons at the back placed as these are at the present day.” – Image source, Pinterest : Coat National Trust Inventory Number 1348779 Date 1760 - 1770 Materials Linen, Silk, Silk twill, Steel Collection Snowshill Wade Costume Collection, Gloucestershire (Accredited Museum)

For many years the two buttons have figured at the waist line of the back of the man's skirt or frock coat. Now, why are they there? For ornament and effect? Not so, originally, for these two buttons were at their beginning for service and not for decoration. 

If you put their inception back into the time when the big square art embroidered and gorgeously lined overcoats were worn, two centuries ago, and when the gallants of the time were wont to go forth on dress parade with the sword at the side and ready to resent any informality of etiquette, you will find that in order to reach the side arm more readily the skirts of the coat were turned back in a reverse shaped way and buttoned or looped upon two buttons at the back placed as these are at the present day. 

In this way they secured an immunity from drapery when the command came, “Draw and defend thyself,” and at the same time exploited a segment of the rich inside of the skirt of the coat in a very effective way. The tinsel, the side arm, the court etiquette, the duello and the gorgeous flowered texture of the coat have gone before, but those two buttons remain on the tail coats of to-day, a suggestion of that period of laces, brocades and romance. — Lewiston Journal, February 14, 1891

🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Improving Etiquette by Dueling?

It is argued that the abolition of dueling causes English women to be treated with less respect than in former days, and thus it is indirectly the origin of the suffragette movement. A step back toward those chivalrous, romantic days has been taken in the preparations now in progress for a special exhibition to illustrate the history of swordsmanship, with the object of popularizing the sword in England. 

— Photo of a “Dueling Sword” from Pinterest 

English Movement to Revive Dueling

Well-Known Men Believe That It Would Improve Manners and Discourage Divorce

LONDON, Jan. 26. — In these days of continued novelties and of the revival of many old things, there is not much room left for real surprises, but a surprise is certainly furnished by the statement, made apparently quite seriously, that certain well-known Englishmen are not only in favor of the revival of the duel, but will do their best to bring such a revival about.


It is argued that the abolition of dueling causes English women to be treated with less respect than in former days, and thus it is indirectly the origin of the suffragette movement. A step back toward those chivalrous, romantic days has been taken in the preparations now in progress for a special exhibition to illustrate the history of swordsmanship, with the object of popularizing the sword in England.


It is claimed by the promoters — many of whom are prominent men in English society— that the revival of dueling in England would be associated with the following beneficial results:
1. Better manners and more civility.
2. The purity of the home.
3. The practical abolition of divorce.
4. A higher moral standard.
5. Less friction and rivalry between the sexes.
6. A finer physical standard for all who practice fencing.


Most of the gentlemen who will take part in the celebration, which will be a matinée, are members of the Actor's Sword Club, and the scenes illustrating the history of the duel will be based on a series of famous fights taken from both history and fiction. Sir George Alexander kindly has kindly loaned St. James's theater for the matinée, but owing to the elaborate preparations necessary, the performance can hardly be given before next May. Duels of all periods will be fought, and special ‘quarrel dialogue’ suitable to the period will be written by well-known authors to lead up to each fight. This ‘quarrel dialogue’ will require very careful writing, for a grievance or insult that would have stung an ancient Roman to the quick might not be enough to base, say, a modern French duel upon.


“We shall overcome this difficulty,” said Gerald Ames, “by facing our quarrels upon the honor of women, in which cause man has been prepared to shed his blood throughout the ages. Nowadays woman is not treated with the respect and reverence that was her right in the old days when most women had a champion who was prepared to draw his sword for her honor. If you take a lady out to supper and some cad of a man takes it into his head to annoy her with his insolent staring, she has no redress, and you have no means of punishing him. If dueling were recognized and practiced in England that sort of thing would be stopped and a lady could walk out alone without fearing the insolent advantages and attentions of the cads who infest our streets to-day.


“But apart altogether from the social advantages of dueling, sword practice, or fencing, is quite the finest exercise there is for keeping a man or woman fit. Lord Halsbury, Lord Desborough, Lord Howard, de Walden, and the Speaker (Mr Lowther) are among our best-known fencers. They have all promised their patronage, and among those who have already promised to help are the amateur champions and ex-champions, Norman Forbes, Ben Webster, Justin Huntly McCarthy, Jerrold Robertshaw, Athol Stewart and Col. Matthew. Egerton Castle will act as ‘chorus’ between the scenes, and explain the development of the weapons and the rules of fencing of the period.”— The New York Times, 1912

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette, Insults and Duels

“Prior to its demise a ‘Royal Code of Honor’ existed and was adhered to by dueling Principals and Seconds. The code stated, ‘No duel can be considered justifiable, which can be declined with honor, therefore, an appeal to arms should always be the last resource.’” according to historian, Geri Walton – Dueling is said to have thrived for nearly three hundred years, but it’s believed the practice ended in 1852, the year of the last recorded English duel. Dueling was outlawed in France in the 17th century, but it stopped very few men. It's estimated that between 1685 and 1716, French officers alone, fought in as many as 10,000 duels, which led to over 400 deaths. Dueling in the US was not uncommon in the West and South, even after 1859, when 18 states had outlawed the practice, but it became a thing of the past in the United States by the early 1900’s.

Defending One’s Honor

The much-talked-of duel between Prince Henry of Orleans and the Count of Turin was fought in Paris at 5 o'clock yesterday morning. It is of little interest to Americans whether the Frenchman or the Italian was the victor in this combat, but it shows conclusively that the matter was a more serious affair than the comments of the English press would imply.

The usual mode of dueling in France, which consists of using sharp-pointed florettes on which buttons are attached one and a half inches from the point, was entirely set aside and rapiers were used instead. Rapier and saber duels are considered in Europe, fully as dangerous as pistol duels, and it cannot, therefore, be said that this affair was anything but a mortal combat.

According to the Code of Honor acknowledged in all Continental armies, no officer of one array is allowed to say anything to a representative of the press detrimental to the honor of another army. Prince Henry, when making his famous criticism of the Italian army in Abyssinia, knew full well that he was committing a breach of etiquette which could not result in anything but a challenge from a representative from the insulted army.

The Italian honor having thus been vindicated, the little episo will be talked of for a few days in France and Italy, and then be entirely forgotten. That any international or even diplomatic controversy should arise from this affair is entirely out of the question, even if Prince Henry should be so unfortunate as to pay with his life for his indiscretion. – San Francisco Call, 1897

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia