office as I occupied previous to your appointment, by returning it to me in time to anticipate such action by

the Senate.

This you admitted.

Second. I then asked you if, at our conference on the preceding Saturday, I had not, to avoid misunderstanding, requested you to state what you intended to do; and further, if, in reply to that inquiry, you had not referred to our former conversations, say ing that from them I understood your position, and that your action would be consistent with the understanding which had been reached.

To these questions you also replied in the affirma

tive.

Third. I next asked if, at the conclusion of our interview on Saturday, it was not understood that we were to have another conference on Monday, before final action by the Senate in the case of Mr. Stanton.

You replied that such was the understanding, but that you did not suppose the Senate would act so soon; that on Monday you had been engaged in a conference with General Sherman, and were occupied with "many little matters," and asked if General Sherman had not called on that day. What relevancy General Sherman's visit to me on Monday had with the purpose for which you were then to have called, I am at a loss to perceive, as he certainly did not inform me whether you had determined to retain possession of the office, or to afford me an opportunity to appoint a successor, in advance of any attempted reinstatement of Mr. Stanton.

This account of what passed between us at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th instant widely differs from that contained in your communication, for it shows that, instead of having "stated our conversations as given in the letter" which has made this reply necessary, you admitted that my recital of them was entirely accurate. Sincerely anxious, how ever, to be correct in my statements, I have to-day made this narration of what occurred on the 14th instant to the members of the Cabinet who were then present. They, without exception, agree in its accuracy.

It is only necessary to add that on Wednesday morning, the 15th, you called on me, in company with Lieutenant-General Sherman. After some preliminary conversation, you remarked that an article in the National Intelligencer. of that date, did you much injustice. I replied that I had not read the Intelligencer of that morning You then first told me that it was your intention to urge Mr. Stanton to resign his office.

After you had withdrawn, I carefully read the article of which you had spoken, and found that its statements of the understanding between us were substantially correct. On the 17th, I caused it to be read to four of the five members of the Cabinet who were present at our conference on the 14th, and they concurred in the general accuracy of its statements respecting our conversation upon that occasion.

In reply to your communication, I have deemed it proper, in order to prevent further misunderstanding, to make this simple recital of facts.

Very respectfully, yours, ANDREW JOHNSON. General U. S. GRANT, commanding U. S. Armies.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 3, 1868. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 31st ultimo in answer to mine of the 28th ultimo. After a careful reading and comparison of it with the article in the National Intelligencer of the 15th ultimo, and the article over the initials "J. B. S." in the New York World of the 27th ultimo, purporting to be based upon your statement and that of the members of your Cabinet therein named, find it to be but a reiteration-only somewhat more in detail-of the " many and gross mis

representations" contained in these articles, and which my statement of the facts set forth in my letter of the 28th ultimo was intended to correct; and I here reassert the correctness of my statements in that letter, any thing in yours in reply to it to the contrary notwithstanding.

I confess my surprise that the Cabinet officers referred to should so greatly misapprehend the facts in the matter of admissions alleged to have been made by me at the Cabinet meeting of the 14th ultimo as to suffer their names to be made the basis of the charges in the newspaper article referred to, or agree in the accuracy, as you affirm they do, of your account of what occurred at that meeting.

You know that we parted on Saturday, the 11th ultimo, without any promise on my part, either express or implied, to the effect that I would hold on to the office of Secretary of War ad interim against the action of the Senate, or, declining to do so myself, would surrender it to you before such action was had, or that I would see you again at any fixed time on the subject.

The performance of the promises alleged by you to have been made by me would have involved a resistance to law and an inconsistency with the whole history of my connection with the suspension of Mr. Stanton.

From our conversations and my written protest of August 1, 1867, against the removal of Mr. Stanton, you must have known that my greatest objection to his removal or suspension was the fear that some one would be appointed in his stead who would, by opposition to the laws relating to the restoration of the Southern States to their proper relations to the Govcrnment, embarrass the Army in the performance of duties especially imposed upon it by these laws; and it was to prevent such an appointment that I accepted the office of Secretary of War ad interim, and not for the purpose of enabling you to get rid of Mr. Stanton by my withholding it from him in opposition to law, or, not doing so myself, surrendering it to one who would, as the statements and assumptions in your communication plainly indicate was sought.

And it was to avoid this same danger, as well as to relieve you from the personal embarrassment in which Mr. Stanton's reinstatement would place you, that I urged the appointment of Governor Cox, believing that it would be agreeable to you and also to Mr. Stanton, satisfied as I was that it was the good of the country, and not the office, the latter desired.

On the 15th ultimo, in presence of General Sherman, I stated to you that I thought Mr. Stanton would resign, but did not say that I would advise him to do so. On the 18th I did agree with General Sherman to go and advise him to that course, and on the 19th I had an interview alone with Mr. Stanton, which led me to the conclusion that any advice to him of the kind would be useless, and I so informed General Sherman.

Before I consented to advise Mr. Stanton to resign, I understood from him, in a conversation on the subject immediately after his reinstatement, that it was his opinion that the act of Congress entitled "An act temporarily to supply vacancies in the Executive Departments in certain cases," approved February 20, 1863, was repealed by subsequent legislation, which materially influenced my action. Previous to this time I had had no doubt that the law of 1863 was still in force, and, notwithstanding my action, a fuller examination of the law leaves a question in my mind whether it is or is not repealed; this being the case, I could not now advise his resignation, lest the same danger I apprehended on his first removal might follow.

The course you would have it understood I agreed to pursue was in violation of law and without orders from you, while the course I did pursue, and which I never doubted you fully understood, was in accordance with law, and not in disobedience of any orders of my superior.

And now, Mr. President, where my honor as a soldier and integrity as a man have been so violently assailed, pardon me for saying that I can but regard this whole matter, from the beginning to the end, as an attempt to involve me in the resistance of law for which you hesitated to assume the responsibility in orders, and thus to destroy my character before the country. I am, in a measure, confirmed in this conclusion by your recent orders directing me to disobey orders from the Secretary of War-my superior and your subordinate-without having countermanded his authority to issue the orders I am to disobey.

With assurance, Mr. President, that nothing less than a vindication of my personal honor and character could have induced this correspondence on my part, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, U. S. GRANT, General.

His Excellency A. JOHNSON,

President of the United States.

To the House of Representatives:

In compliance with the resolution adopted yesterday by the House of Representatives, requesting any further correspondence the President" may have had with General U. S. Grant, in addition to that heretofore submitted, on the subject of the recent vacation by the latter of the War Office," I transmit herewith a copy of a communication addressed to General Grant on the 10th instant, together with a copy of the accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, D. C., February 11, 1868.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 10, 1868. GENERAL: The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3d instant would seem to preclude any reply on my part, but the manner in which publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter forms a part, and the grave questions which are involved, induce me to take this mode of giving, as a proper sequel to the communications which have passed between us, the statements of the five members of the Cabinet who were present on the occasion of our conversation on the 14th ultimo. Copies of the letters which they have addressed to me upon the subject are accordingly herewith enclosed.

You speak of my letter of the 31st ultimo as a reiteration of the "many and gross misrepresentations" contained in certain newspaper articles, and reassert the correctness of the statements contained in your communication of the 28th ultimo, adding-and here I give your own words-" any thing in yours in reply to it to the contrary notwithstanding."

When a controversy upon matters of fact reaches the point to which this has been brought, further assertion or denial between the immediate parties should cease, especially where, upon either side, it loses the character of the respectful discussion which is required by the relations in which the parties stand to each other, and degenerates in tone and temper. In such a case, if there is nothing to rely upon but the opposing statements, conclusions must be drawn from those statements alone, and from whatever intrinsic probabilities they afford in favor of or against either of the parties. I should not shrink from this test in this controversy; but, fortunately, it is not left to this test alone. There were five Cabinet officers present at the conversation, the detail of which, in my letter of the 28th ultimo, you allow yourself to say, contains "many and gross misrepresentations." These gentlemen heard that conversation, and have read my statement. They speak for themselves, and I leave the proof without a word of comment.

I deem it proper, before concluding this communication, to notice some of the statements contained in your letter.

You say that a performance of the promises alleged to have been made by you to the President "would have involved a resistance to law and an inconsistency with the whole history of my connection with

the suspension of Mr. Stanton." You then state the you had fears the President would, on the removal of Mr. Stanton, appoint some one in his place who would embarrass the Army in carrying out the recenstruction acts, and add:

"It was to prevent such appointment that I cepted the office of Secretary of War ad interim, and not for the purpose of enabling you to get rid of Mr. Stanton by my withholding it from him in opposi tion to law, or, not doing so myself, surrendering: to one who would, as the statements and assump tions in your communication plainly indicate was sought."

First of all, you here admit that, from the very beginning of what you term "the whole history"d your connection with Mr. Stanton's suspension, yo intended to circumvent the President. It was to cry out that intent that you accepted the appointment. This was in your mind at the time of your acceptance. It was not, then, in obedience to the order your superior, as has heretofore been supposed, that you assumed the duties of the office. You knew i was the President's purpose to prevent Mr. Stand from resuming the office of Secretary of War, and you intended to defeat that purpose. You accepted the office, not in the interest of the President, but d Mr. Stanton. If this purpose, so entertained by y had been confined to yourself; if, when accepting the office, you had done so with a mental reservation frustrate the President, it would have been a tact deception. In the ethics of some persons such a course is allowable; but you cannot stand even that questionable ground. The "history" of you connection with this transaction, as written by your self, places you in a different predicament, and shows that you not only concealed your design from ta President, but induced him to suppose that you would carry out his purpose to keep Mr. Stanton out of office by retaining it yourself after an attempted restoration by the Senate, so as to require Mr. Starton to establish his right by judicial decision.

I now give that part of this "history," as writt by yourself in your letter of the 28th ultimo:

Some time after I assumed the duties of Secretary of War ad interim the President asked me my views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have to purse, in case the Senate should not concur in his suspersion, to obtain possession of his office. My reply was, in substance, that Mr. Stanton would have to appea to the courts to reinstate him, illustrating my post tion by citing the ground I had taken in the case of the Baltimore police commissioners."

Now, at that time, as you admit in your letter of the 3d instant, you held the office for the very eject of defeating an appeal to the courts. In the letter you say that in accepting the office one mo was to prevent the President from appointing s other person who would retain possession, and the make judicial proceedings necessary. You knew tor President was unwilling to trust the office with y one who would not, by holding it, compel Mr. S ton to resort to the courts. You perfectly understoo that in this interview, "some time" after you accepted the office, the President, not content with your silence, desired an expression of your views, and ye swered him that, Mr. Stanton "would have to appeal to the courts." If the President had reposed ondence before he knew your views, and that confidence had been violated, it might have been said Le a mistake; but a violation of confidence reposed after that conversation was no mistake of his nor of yours. It is the fact only that needs be stated, that at the date of this conversation you did not intend to h the office with the purpose of forcing Mr. Stauta into court, but did hold it then, and had accepted a to prevent that course from being carried out. In other words, you said to the President, that is the proper course," and you said to yourself, I have accepted this office, and now hold it, to defeat that course." The excuse you make in a subsequent par

H.

agraph of that letter of the 28th ultimo, that after ward you changed your views as to what would be a proper course, has nothing to do with the point now under consideration. The point is, that, before you changed your views, you had secretly determined im to do the very thing which at last you did-surrender the office to Mr. Stanton. You may have changed your views as to the law, but you certainly did not change your views as to the course you had marked out for yourself from the beginning.

122

I will only notice one more statement in your letter of the 3d instant-that the performance of the promises which it is alleged were made by you would have involved you in the resistance of law. I know of no statute that would have been violated had you, carrying out your promises in good faith, tendered your resignation when you concluded not to be made a party in any legal proceedings. You add:

"I am in a measure confirmed in this conclusion by your recent orders directing me to disobey orders from the Secretary of War, my superior and your subordinate, without having countermanded his authority to issue the orders I am to disobey."

On the 24th ultimo you addressed a note to the President, requesting in writing an order given to you verbally five days before, to disregard orders from Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War until you "knew from the President himself that they were his orders."

On the 29th, in compliance with your request, I did give you instructions in writing "not to obey any order from the War Department assumed to be issued by the direction of the President, unless such order is known by the General commanding the armies of the United States to have been authorized by the Executive."

There are some orders which a Secretary of War may issue without the authority of the President; there are others which he issues simply as the agent of the President, and which purport to be "by direction" of the President. For such orders the President is responsible, and he should therefore know and understand what they are before giving such "direction." Mr. Stanton states in his letter of the 4th instant, which accompanies the published correspondence, that he has had no correspondence with the President since the 12th of August last;" and he further says that since he resumed the duties of the office he has continued to discharge them "without any personal or written communication with the President;" and he adds, "No orders have been issued from this Department in the name of the President with my knowledge, and I have received no orders from him."

It thus seems that Mr. Stanton now discharges the luties of the War Department without any reference to the President, and without using his name.

My order to you had only reference to orders "asumed to be issued by the direction of the President." It would appear from Mr. Stanton's letter that you ave received no such orders from him. However, n your note to the President of the 30th ultimo, in which you acknowledge the receipt of the written order of the 29th, you say that you have been inormed by Mr. Stanton that he has not received any rder limiting his authority to issue orders to the Army, according to the practice of the Department, and state that while this authority to the War Deartment is not countermanded it will be satisfactory vidence to me that any orders issued from the War Department by direction of the President are authorzed by the Executive."

The President issues an order to you to obey no order from the War Department, purporting to be nade "by the direction of the President," until you ave referred it to him for his approval. You reply That you have received the President's order, and will not obey it, but will obey an order purporting be given by his direction, if it comes from the War Department. You will not obey the direct order of

the President, but will obey his indirect order. If, as you say, there has been a practice in the War Department to issue orders in the name of the President without his direction, does not the precise order you have requested and have received change the practice as to the General of the Army? Could not the President countermand any such order issued to you from the War Department? If you should receive an order from that Department, issued in the name of the President, to do a special act, and an order directly from the President himself not to do the act, is there a doubt which you are to obey? You answer the question when you say to the President, in your letter of the 3d instant, the Secretary of War is my superior and your subordinate," and yet you refuse obedience to the superior out of deference to the subordinate.

Without further comment upon the insubordinate attitude which you have assumed, I am at a loss to know how you can relieve yourself from obedience to the orders of the President, who is made by the Constitution the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and is therefore the official superior as well of the General of the Army as of the Secretary of War. Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON. General U. S. GRANT, commanding Armies of the United States, Washington, D. C.

Copy of letter addressed to each of the members of the Cabinet present at the conversation between the President and General Grant on the 14th of January, 1868.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 5, 1868. SIR: The Chronicle of this morning contains a correspondence between the President and General Grant, reported from the War Department, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives. I beg to call your attention to that correspondence, and especially to that part of it which refers to the conversation between the President and General Grant, at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, and to request you to state what was said in that conversation. Very respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 5, 1868. SIR: Your note of this date was handed to me this evening. My recollection of the conversation at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, corresponds with your statement of it in the letter of the 31st ultimo, in the published correspondence. The three points specified in that letter, giving your recollection of the conversation, are correctly stated. Very respectfully, GIDEON WELLES. To the PRESIDENT.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 6, 1868. SIR: I have received your note of the 5th instant, calling my attention to the correspondence between yourself and General Grant, as published in the Chronicle of yesterday, especially to that part of it which relates to what occurred at the Cabinet meet

iug on Tuesday, the 14th ultimo, and requesting me

to state what was said in the conversation referred to.

I cannot undertake to state the precise language used, but I have no hesitation in saying that your account of that conversation, as given in your letter stantially and in all important particulars accords to General Grant under date of the 31st ultimo, sub

with my recollection of it.

With great respect, your obedient servant, HUGH McCULLOCH. The PRESIDENT.

POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, February 6, 1868. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th February, calling my attention to the correspondence,

published in the Chronicle, between the President and General Grant, and especially to that part of it which refers to the conversation between the President and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, with a request that I state what was said in that conversation.

In reply, I have the honor to state that I have read carefully the correspondence in question, and particularly the letter of the President to General Grant, dated January 31, 1868. The following extract from your letter of the 31st January to General Grant is, according to my recollection, a correct statement of the conversation that took place between the President and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th of January last. In the presence of the Cabinet the President asked General Grant whether, "in conversation which took place after his appointment as Secretary of War ad interim, he did not agree either to remain at the head of the War Department and abide any judicial proceedings that might follow the non-concurrence by the Senate in Mr. Stanton's suspension, or, should he wish not to become involved in such a controversy, to put the President in the same position with respect to the office as he occupied previous to General Grant's appointment, by returning it to the President in time to anticipate such action by the Senate." This General Grant admitted.

The President then asked General Grant if, at the conference on the preceding Saturday, he had not, to avoid misunderstanding, requested General Grant to state what he intended to do; and further, if in reply to that inquiry he (General Grant) had not referred to their former conversations, saying that from them the President understood his position, and that his (General Grant's) action would be consistent with the understanding which had been reached. To these questions General Grant replied in the affirmative..

The President asked General Grant if, at the conclusion of their interview on Saturday, it was not understood that they were to have another conference on Monday, before final action by the Senate in the case of Mr. Stanton.

General Grant replied that such was the understanding, but that he did not suppose the Senate would act so soon; that on Monday he had been engaged in a conference with General Sherman, and was occupied with "many little matters," and asked if General Sherman had not called on that day.

I take this mode of complying with the request contained in the President's letter to me, because my attention had been called to the subject before, when the conversation between the President and General Grant was under consideration. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, ALEXANDER W. RANDALL, Postmaster-General.

To the PRESIDENT.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 6, 1868. SIR: I am in receipt of yours of yesterday, calling my attention to a correspondence between yourself and General Grant, published in the Chronicle newspaper, and especially to that part of said correspondence which refers to the conversation between the President and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January," and requesting me "to state what was said in that conversation."

In reply, I submit the following statement: at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, 1868, General Grant appeared and took his accustomed seat at the board. When he had been reached in the order of business, the President asked him, as usual, if he had any thing to present.

In reply, the General, after referring to a note which he had that morning addressed to the President, inclosing a copy of the resolution of the Senate refusing to concur in the reasons for the suspension of Mr. Stanton, proceeded to say that he regarded his duties

as Secretary of War ad interim terminated by that res olution, and that he could not lawfully exercise such duties for a moment after the adoption of the rescltion by the Senate. That the resolution reached him last night, and that this morning he had gone to the War Department, entered the Secretary's room, bolted one door on the inside, locked the other on the outside, delivered the key to the Adjutant-General, and proceeded to the headquarters of the Army, and addressed the note above mentioned to the President, informing him that he (General Grant) was no longer Secretary of War ad interim.

The President expressed great surprise at the course which General Grant had thought proper to pursue, and, addressing himself to the General, pre ceeded to say, in substance, that he had anticipated such action on the part of the Senate, and berz very desirous to have the eonstitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Bill tested, and his right to suspen or remove a member of the Cabinet decided by the judicial tribunals of the country, he had some time ago, and shortly after General Grant's appointment as Secretary of War ad interim, asked the Geral what his action would be in the event that th Senate should refuse to concur in the suspension ef Mr. Stanton, and that the General had then arred either to remain at the head of the War Department till a decision could be obtained from the court resign the office into the hands of the President be fore the case was acted upon by the Senate, so as to place the President in the same situation he octpied at the time of his (Grant's) appointment. The President further said that the conversatio was renewed on the preceding Saturday, at wh time he asked the General what he intended to do the Senate should undertake to reinstate Mr. Staton, in reply to which the General referred to that former conversation upon the same subject, and s "You understand my position, and my condrew be conformable to that understanding;" that he General) then expressed a repugnance to being a party to a judicial proceeding, saying that he w expose himself to fine and imprisonment hydr so, as his continuing to discharge the duties of Seretary of War ad interim after the Senate sh have refused to concur in the suspension of Mr. St ton would be a violation of the Tenure-of-Office B That in reply to this he (the President) informed G eral Grant he had not suspended Mr. Stanton the Tenure-of-Office Bill, but by virtue of the pose conferred on him by the Constitution; and that to the fine and imprisonment, he (the President pay whatever fine was imposed and submit to he ever imprisonment might be adjudged against (the General). That they continued the conversat for some time, discussing the law at length, and they finally separated without having reached a d nite conclusion, and with the understanding that General would see the President again on Monday,

In reply, General Grant admitted that the ec sations had occurred, and said that at the first versation he had given it as his opinion to the Pres dent that, in the event of non-concurrence by the ate in the action of the President in respect to the retary of War, the question would have to be decide by the court; that Mr. Stanton would have to real to the court to reinstate him in office that the would remain in till they could be displaced, and outs put in by legal proceeding; and that he th thought so, and had agreed that if he should b his mind he would notify the President in tet enable him to make another appointment, but th at the time of the first conversation he had D looked very closely into the law; that it had re been discussed by the newspapers, and that this induced him to examine it more carefully, and th he had come to the conclusion that, if the Se should refuse to concur in the suspension, Mr. St ton would thereby be reinstated, and that be (Gra could not continue thereafter to act as Secretary &