Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 2, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 February 1859 — The Douglas and. Eitch Correspondence. [ARTICLE]

The Douglas and. Eitch Correspondence.

The 'Washington Union contains the correspondence in full between Senators Douglas and Fitch, growing out of the late difficulty between them. Here it is. It will be seen that Douglas has the worst of it: Washington, Jan. 21, 1859. Sir: To-day, in secret session, you offered me an affront so wanton and unprovoked, and unjustifiable, that I am obliged to infer it must have been the impulse of momentary passion and not of deliberate premeditation. This note is written for the purpose of affording you an opportunity of saying whether or not my conclusion is correct; and further, of affording you an opportunity of retracting the offensive language which-you thus gratuitous y and unxMirrantly applied to me. Respectfully, &c., S. A. Douglas. To Hon. Graham N. Fitch. Washington, Jan. 22, 1859. Sir: Your note of yesterday was handed me this morning. In reply, I have to say that you yesterday made a charge that the lately-appointed Federal officers in Illinois were corrupt and dishonest men, or words to that effect. You know my son to be one of these officers, and you could not expect me to hear such a charge without prompt denial of its truth. ; pronounce it to be to your knowledge untrue. * You subsequently so modified it as to satisfy me that you excepted my son from the general charge, although you did not name’ him, and I made no further issue with you on the subject. When, at a subsequent period of your remarks, you attributed to me the statements which I had not made, I requested that in quoting me you should do so truthfully. These remarks were certainly not deliber- I ately premeditated, but they cannot be' qualified correctly' as the impulse of-momen-tary passion. The first was prompted by I the determination to defend the honor and I character of my son. as dear to me as my | own, against an attack ,so general in its? terms as necessarily to include him; and the - second was the exercise of my right to rec- ‘ tify a misapprehension of my own remarks. i Hon.'S. A. G. N. Fitch. , Washington, Jan. 22, 91 I’. M. Sir: Your note of this date has just been placed in my hand. I admit without hesitation your right and duty to do justice to the reputation of yoar son. At the same time I maintain my right in discharge of my duty ah Senator, to comment fully and freely on the character of. Executive appointments, especially in my own state. I deny, however, that my general remarks in relation to the Illinois appointees confirmed by the Senate, during my absence, could be fairly interpreted to embrace your son. When you seemed so to construe them I promptly replied that what I had said of ■ the Illinois appointments was true, as a general rule, but that there were exceptions, i among whom 1 recognized some of my own friends. Alluding particularly to your son, I added that I had nothing to say in regard I to the merits of his appointment, choosing ! to leave that question where I placed it by - my remarks to the Senate during the last i session in your presence, at the time of his I confirmation. You now admit that you understand this explanation to exempt your son from the appiftation of my general remarks, and yet • you failed .to- withdraw the offensive lan- [ guage, but. on the contrary, at a subsequent stage of the debate, when appologizing for ; a breech of Senatorial decorum, you ex- 1 pressly declared you had nothing to retract, thus appearing, in my apprehension, to reaffirm the .bjectional words. As to the other grounds of offensive lan- ■ guage, admitted in your reply to my note, I have tosay that I did not understand you to assume to correct me in a quotation of your language, as I was unconscious of making any such citation, but to repeats the original ofldnse jn another form, otherwise I should have made a proper response on the instant. This-explanation which is due alike to us both on the points presented in your reply, affords you another opportunity of withdrawing the offensive words which you admit you applied in yesterday’s date. Respectfully, &c., S. A. Douglas. Hon. Graham N. Fitch. Washington, January 23. Sir: Your note of last evening was handed me at 12 M. to-day. Your explanation in regard to my son being now explicit, I have no hesitation in saying that if you had excepted him from your charge, or not n tide it general, I would not have deemed myself warranted in repelling it in the words of which you complain as offensive, and which in consequence of your explanation I now withdraw. I am alsb informed by your note that if you had not been mistaken in relation to my remarks on the subject of your misrepresentation of my sentiments, you would, at the instant, have made proper response. This likewise enabled me to say thdt in my closing remarks, explanatory to\t.he Senate, of my share in an exciting debate upon a subject not revelant to anything before that body; and the responsibility for the introduction of which, rested solely with you, I would have withdrawn, as I- now dd, the second offensive remark, if you had made the same satisfactory explanation that you have now made. Respectfully, &c., ‘ G. N. Fitch. Hon. S. A. Douglas. Washington, Jan. 24, 1859. Sir: Your note ofyesterday has been received, and while I accept your withdrawal of the words to which I have taken exceptions, I owe it to myself to p otest against the idea you seem to entertain, that mv note of Saturday was intended as a precedent and inducing condition of the redress which I solicited, instead of being, as I certainly designed it, merely responsive to the specification in your reply to my first communication. In regard to the introduction and relevancy of the matter in the debate out of which this difficulty arose, I cannot think that a proper subject of discussion in the present correspondence. Respectfully. &.c., S. A. Douglas. Hon. G. N. Fitch. t Washington, Jan. 24, 1859. Sir: Your note of to-day was received at 11$ A. M. It is not for me to judge the motives which dictated yours of the 22d.

I can only say that my answer was predicted upon the explanations it contained. If your explanations are disavowed, my withdrawal must likewise be disavowed. Respectfully,&c. G. N. Fitch. Hon. S. A. Douglas. Washington, Jan. 24, 1859. Sir; I am averse to prolonging this controversy after gaining the substance of my demand, but I cannot close without answering to your last note, by saying that it is immaterial to me upon what you predicate your withdrawal, since I have guarded against a misapprehension of my position. Respectfully, &c., S. A. Douglas. Hon. Graham N. Fitch. “The lion roareth, and the whangdoodle mourneth for his first-born.”