The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-01-27

Whether there is anything implied in this dis
junction of terms, our readers, if curious to know,
may possibly be able TO learn from the correspon-
Union and yesterdays EXCHANGE. Seven notes in
all appear to have been required in order to effect
an adjustment, from which we NAV infer that
the s'difficulty' was an unusually serious one.
In ordinary cases, one half of that amount of
Government stationery would have suffced. This
inference is further strengthened by the statement
given in the correspondence of the original cause
of the ''dffculty''-which in his first note Mr..
DOUGLAS asserts to have been "wanton,' Sun
provoked" and 'unjustifable'' ''affront" put
upon him (DoUGLAs) by him (FITCH); and the
note in question, is declared to have been written
''for the purpose of affording" the latter San OPP
portunity' of explaining whether said affront was
''the impulse of momentary passion" or 1.-THE inn
pulse) 'of deliberate generalization, and also of
retracting (f he liked certain other offensive
language" said to have been applied on the same
occasion, to the said DOUGLAS by the said FITCH.
To this note-Mr. FITCH (No. p replies with the
delicate caution of a special pleader, and the
nice discrimination of grammaran. He
cannot say that his remarks uttered
in debate were deliberately premeditated" but
thinks that they "cannot be correctly qualified ms
" the impulse of momentary passion" For the
rest-to borrow phrase from the art of special
pleading-of which, the whole correspondence
is highly suggestive, he ''conieSscs and avoids"
Admitting" &c, he pleads in justification,
previous remarks uttered by Mr.. DOUGLAS and
by him Mr.. FTcH) TO have been in
of his (FITcH's) son. To this plea
Of paternal affection, Mr.. DOUGLAS NO ~ files a
replication denying" &c, and affording FIrcH
another opportunity of withdrawing" &c. Mr..
FITCH (No. a. rejoins, saying that 'if," &c.
'Hen' as "noo," &c, he (FmcH) "would not
have" &C., at least ''in the acords," &c Mr..
DOUGLAS (No. 81 SURGEONS accepting" &C., but
protesting nevertheless" &c. To this protesta-
ton Mr.. FITCH, (No. g. takes exception. If
no explanation, he says, on the part of DOUGLAS
then no withdrawal on the part of FTcH. No.
follows from Mr.. DOUGLAS, and closes the cores
pondence-''averse to prolonging controversy
gained substance of demand the rest who'll
y 'immaterial, &c, &c., and so ends the matter
Each party appears to be perfectly ''satisfed,0
and so doubtless is the public But who has
apologized or retracted-or whether there has been
any apology or retraction at all-or whether
explanations having been made, such e1plana-
lions were subsequently withdrawn-are questions
that we confess ourselves wholly unable to
answer. The whole affair appears to us to
be puerie in the highest degree-dscredita-
ole to both parties in its inception, and equally
NOTORIOUS in its termination. If anything can
serve to bring the practice of demanding personal
for personal afronts into utter disre-
oute among sensible people, it is the ridicule cast
upon it by such farcical proceedings as that in
which Messrs. DOUGLAS and FITCH have lust
figured so prominently before the nation.