The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, lB6B

CONGRESS.

of naturalization, under conditions imposed by law, are
declared to he and to have been a part of the public law of
the United States, and the Executive shall insist upon the
observance of these rights by foreign nations. if those
rights shall bo contravened it is made the duty of the Pre-
sident to so inform Congress without delay, so that that
body may take immediate moans for the protection of its
citizens. Any citizen may lose his national character ;
Ist, by becoming naturalized in any foreign country ; 2d,
by undertaking without the permission of this Govern-
ment the performance of public duties under a foreign Go-
vernment ; 3d, by making his domicile in a foreign Govern-
ment without intent to return. Citizens of the United
States in every part of the world, while engaged in lawful
business, shall be entitled to the protection of the Govern-
ment ; but protection shall not be accorded to the following
classes of persons : —lst. Those who have renounced their
citizenship by either of the three modes prescribed above.
2. Those who may bo guilty of a c. line against a foreign
country, committed within its jurisdiction. 31 Those who
by treason or other crime against the United States shall have
forfeited their rights of citizens. 4th. Those who shall
have been absent from the United States for more than
five years continuously, and who shall have failed to make
return of their income and property for taxation, and
shall have paid no taxes, &c. sth. Those who shall engage
in the service of any foreign belligerent contrary to the
provisions of the neutrality laws of the United States. 6th.
Those who may connect themselves with any association
in any foreign country whose organization requires citi-
zenship of such country as a qualification for membership
thereof. 7th. Those naturalized citizens who shall return
to the country of their birth with intent to resume a domi-
cile therein, which intent shall be presumed from five
years' continuous residence in the native country of any
such naturalized citizen, or from the establishment of any
business therein which requires his personal attention, and
which denotes an intention of remaining a permanent re-
sident. Bth. Those persons who have procured the evi-
dence of naturalization by misrepresentation or fraud in
regard to residence or otherwise. 9th. Those who have
deserted from actual service in the army or navy of any
foreign State, or who, owing military service to their
native country, have left it to avoid a conscription ac-
tually ordered. The bill then enacts that any one who
has lost his citizenship by any of the above modes, may
again become a citizen by declaring his intention, &c.]
The following is the text of the bill introduced to
the House to-day by Mr. Wilson, of lowa, for the
surrender of persons convicted of certain crimes. It
enacts that no person who has been duly convicted
in a foreign country, and adjudged guilty of mur-
der, piracy, assassination, arson, robbery, or for-
gery, and whose conviction has not been reversed,
shall be allowed to enter or remain in the United
States ; and it authorizes the President, upon the
production of satisfactory proof that a person so
convicted of either of the said crimes has entered,
or is about to enter, the United States, to cause him
to be sent back to the country from which he came
or in which he may have been so convicted.
Feb. 13.—The Rights of American Citizens
abroad were discussed ; Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode
Island, on the floor. The Speaker said the bill
would occupy every morning hour next week, to
the exclusion of business and reports from other
committees. After Mr. Jenckes' remarks, Mr.
Wilson, of lowa, moved to refer the subject to the
Committee of the Whole. Mr. Banks, of Massa-
chusetts, moved to amend by recommitting the bill
and pending amendments to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, which was agreed to. The House
resumed the consideration of the contested election,
Smith versus Brown from sth District Kentucky,
and Mr. John Young Brown addressed the House
in support of his right. He explained at length the
position he occupied in 1861, and repelled the
charges that he was disloyal to the Government,
and he showed that he occupied the same position
that was then occupied by such men as Crittenden,
Guthrie, Speed, and others, _;After Mr.' Brown
had spoken one hour his time was extended to en_
able him to conclude his •speech. , Mr. Dawes, of
Massachusetts, chairman of the Committee on Elec-
tions, rose to close debate -Upon the, pending reso-
lution, and first denied that the report of the com-
mittee was in any respect partisan in its character.
Referring to some remarks heretofore made by Mr.
Kerr, of Indiana, upon the case, in which the latter
accused him of misrepresenting the facts in the case,
the charge was repelled ; and Mr. Dawes said he
resorted to no misrepresentation, nor did he deem
it necessary to resort to special pleading in the case.
He then reviewed at length the record of Mr. Brown,
and then argued that it all showed disloyalty.
On the question being put, declaring Mr."'Brown
entitled to his seat, there were 43 yeas to 108 nays.
The vote was a strictly party one, with the excep-
tion of Messrs Jenckes of Rhode Island, Poland of
Vermont, and Mallory of Oregon, who voted in the
affirmative. The resolution declaring Mr. Brown
not entitled to a seat was then adopted.

SENATE.

Feb. 13.—The Chair presented a petition of
citizens asking that the Constitution of the United
States should be so changed as to recognize the
existence of God and the obligations of religion.
—Referred to Judiciary Committee. The resolu-

tion providing for the admission of the Hon. P. F.
Thomas, Senator elect for Maryland, was taken up,
and Mr. Sumner submitted a substitute, setting
forth facts which showed he was guilty of misprison
of treason as defined by existing laws, and cannot
be permitted to take the oaths of office. Mr.
Sumner supported his resolution by a speech, wherein
he asserted that the question of how to secure
loyalty in the Southern States had been substituted
with the question of how to secure loyalty in the
Senate. The action of the Senate would affect the
validity of the Constitutional amendment excluding
rebels. Both by the spirit and letter of the Con-
Ititution that amendment was a part of it. It had
peen favourably reported upon by three-fourths of

the State Legislatures, and, above all, there Was
nothing in the Constitution to prevent the Senate
from prescribing loyalty as a qualification. A dis-

loyal Senator in the Chamber is perilous to the Re-
public ; failing in loyalty, he cannot be allowed to
go to that desk. If the Senate knowingly permits
him to take a false oath it becomes a partner in his
crime. The country had a right to expect loyalty
above suspicion in all who entered that Chamber,
and none who had given aid or countenance to
another engaged in the rebellion can be permitted
to take the oath. Mr. Trumbull followed. He
agreed with all Mr. Sumner had said, but argued
in favour of admitting Mr. Thomas, while Mr. Sher-
man thought it his duty to vote against the ad-
mission of Mr. Thomas, but not for the reasons
stated by Mr. Sumner.—The discussion continued
till the Senate adjourned.

ding this I fulfilled the promise made in our
last preceding conversation on the subject.

The President, however, instead of accepting my
view of the requirements of the Tenure-of-Office Bill,
contended that he had suspended Mr. Stanton under
the authority given by the Constitution, and that
the same authority did not preclude him from re-

porting as an act of courtesy his reasons for the
suspension to the Senate; that having been appointed
under the authority given by the Constitution, and
not under any act of Congress, I could not be
governed by the Act. I stated that the law was
binding on me, constitutional or not, until set aside

by the proper tribunal. An hour or more was con-
sumed, each reiterating his views on this subject,
until, getting late, the President said he would see
me again. I did not agree to call again on Monday,

nor at any other definite time, nor was I sent for
by the President until the following Tuesday.
From the 11th to the Cabinet meeting on the 11th,

a doubt never entered my mind about the Presi-
dent's fully understanding my position, namely,
that if the State refused to concur in the suspension

of Mr. Stanton, my powers as Secretary of War,
ad interim, would cease, and Mr. Stanton's right to
resume at once the functions of his office would,
under the law, be indisputable, and 1 acted ac-

cordingly. With Mr. Stanton I had no communi-
cation, direct or indirect, on the subject of his
reinstatement, during his suspension. I knew it
had been recommended to the President to send in
the name of Governor Cox, of Ohio, for Secretary
of War, and thus save all embarrassment, a proposi-
tion that I sincerely hoped he would entertain
favourably, Gen. Sherman seeing the President, at
my particular request to urge this, on the 13th inst.
On Tuesday, the day Mr. Stanton re-entered the
office of the Secretary of War, General Comstock,
who had carried my official letter announcing that
witb Mr. Stanton's reinstatement by the Senate I
had ceased to be Secretary of War, ad interim, and
who saw the President open and read the commu-
nication, brought back to me from the President a
message that he wanted to see me that day, at the
Cabinet meeting, after I had made known the fact
that I was no longer Secretary of War, ad interim.
At this meeting, after opening it as though I was a
member of his Cabinet, when reminded of the noti-
fication already given him that I was no longer
Secretary of War, ad interim, the President gave a
version of the conversation alluded to already. In
this statement it was asserted that in both conversa-
tions I had agreed to hold on to the office of Secre-
tary of War until displaced by the courts, or resign,
so as to place the President where he would have
been had I never occupied the office. After hearing
the President through, I stated our conversations,
substantially as given in this letter. I will add that
my conversation before the Cabinet embraced other
matter not pertinent here, and is therefore left out.
I in no wise admitted the correctness of the Presi-
dent's statement of our conversation, though to
soften the evident contradiction my statement gave,
I said, alluding to our first conversation on the sub-
ject, the President might have understood me
the way he said, namely, that I had promised to
resign if I did not resist the reinstatement. I made
no such promise." The first paragraph causes
some surprise, as the President appears to have
consulted the General on a legal point of great diffi-
culty. It is evident that his object could not have
been to get a legal opinion, but to ascertain how_far
the General would support in resisting the action of
the Senate; which be must clearly have anticipate&
h o noticeable p 0 in t is that <the General when be
arrived at his' I;tal•decision not to suppOti the
PreSident in what he considered a breach (*the
law did not resign the. ad interim appointment to
the President, his commanding officer, from whom
he had received it. It is in this that General Grant
erred, for whatever might have been the President's
course, the simple, honest, soldier-like expedient was
for him to give back the appointment, stating that
his own conclusion as to his duty prohibited him
from acting as the President desired. Accompany-
ing this letter was the official application for a
written order to disregard instructions from the
Secretary of War, which the President endorsed as
we stated in our last. To this memorandum Grant
replied on the 30th of January, stating that he had
not received any instructions impairing his authority
to issue orders to the army as had been the custom
under the law and practice of the Department.
Grant then goes on to state that until such com-
mand be issued by the President it would be satis-
factory evidence to him that all orders from the
IVar Department by direction of the President are
authorised by the Executive. The next day, the
president dated his version of the affair :—" General,
—I have received your communication of the 28th
inst., renewing your request of the 24th, that I
should repeat in a written form my verbal instruc-
tions on the 19th inst, viz.,—' That you obey no
order of Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War,
unless you have information that it was issued by
the President's direction.' In submitting this re-
quest, with which I complied on the 29th inst., you
take occasion to allude to the recent publication in
reference to the circumstances connected with the
vacation by yourself of the Office of Secretary of -War,
ad interim, and with the view of correcting the state-
ments which you term gross misrepresentations,'
and give at length your recollection of the facts under
which, without the sanction of the President, from
whom you had received and accepted the appoint-
ment, you yielded the Department of War to the
present incumbent, as stated in your communication.
Some time after you had assumed the duties of
Secretary of War, ad interim, we interchanged views
respecting the course that should be pursued in the
event of the non-concurrence by the Senate in the
suspension of Mr. Stanton. I sought that inter-
view, calling myself at the War Department. My
sole object in then bringing the subject to your at-
tention was to ascertain definitely what would be
your own action, should such an attempt be made
for his restoration to the War Department. That
object was accomplished, for the interview termi-
nated with the distinct understanding that if, upon
reflection, you should prefer not to become a party
to the controversy, or should conclude that it would
be your duty to surrender the department to Mr.
Stanton upon action in his favour by the Senate,
you were to return the office to me, prior to a de-
cision by the Senate, in order that, if I desired to
do so, I might designate some one to succeed you.
It must have been apparent to you that had not
this understanding been reached, it was my purpose
to relieve you from the further discharge of your
duties as Secretary of War, ad interim, and to ap-
point some other person in that capacity. Other
conversations on the subject ensued, all of them
having, on my part, the same object and leading to
the same conclusion as the first. It is not neces-
sary, however, to refer to any of them excepting
that of Saturday, the 11th inst., mentioned in your
communication, as it was then known that the
Senate had proceeded in the case of Mr. Stanton. I
was anxious to learn your determination. After
a protracted interview, during which the provisions
of the Tenure-of-Office Bill were fully discussed,
you said, that as it had been agreed upon in onr
first conference, you would either return the office
to my possession in time to enable me to appoint a
successor before final action by the Senate upon
Mr. Stanton's suspension, or would remain at its
head awaiting a decision of the question by judicial
proceeding. It was then understood that there would
be a further conference on Monday, by which time
I supposed you would be prepared to inform me of
your final decision. You failed, however, to fulfil
the engagement, and on Tuesday notified me in,
writing the receipt of your official notification of
the action of the Senate in the case of Mr. Stanton,
and at the same time informed me that, according
to the Act regulating the tenure of certain civil
offices, your functions as Secretary of War, ad
interim, ceased from the moment of the receipt of
the notice. You thus, in disregard of the under-
standing between us, vacated the office without
having given me notice of your intention to do so.
It is but just, however, to say that in your commu-
nication you claim that you did inform me of your
purpose, and thus fulfilled the promise made in our
last preceding conversation on the subject. The
fact that such a promise existed is evidence of an
arrangement of the kind I have mentioned. You
had found in our first conference that the Presi-
dent was desirous of keeping Mr. Stanton out of

ferred upon you, thus saving yourself from embar-
rassment and leaving the responsibility where it
properly belonged with the President, who is ac-
countable for the faithful execution of the law. I
have not yet been informed by you whether, as
twice proposed by yourself, you had called on Mr.
Stanton and made an effort to induce him volun-
tarily to resign from the War Department. You
conclude your communication with a reference to
our conversation at the meeting of the Cabinet held
on Tuesday, the 14th inst. In your account of
what then occurred you say After the Presi-
dent had given his version of our previous conver-
sations, you stated them substantially as given in
your letter, and -that you in no wise admitted the
correctness of his statement of them. Though to
soften the evident contradiction my statement gave,
I said, alluding to our first communication on the
subject, the President might have understood in the
way he said, namely, that I had promised to resign
if I did not resist the reinstatement. I made no
such promise.' " My recollection of what then
transpired is diametrically the reverse of your nar-
rative. In the presence of the Cabinet, I asked you
first, if in a conversation which took place shortly
after your appointment as Secretary of War, ad
interim, you did not agree either to remain at the
head of the War Department, and abide any judi-
cial proceedings that might follow the non-concur-
rence by the Senate in Mr. Stanton's suspension, or,
should you wish not to become involved in such a
controversy, to put me in the same position with
respect to the office, as I occupied previous to your
appointment, by returning it to me in time to anti-
cipate such action by the Senate. This you admitted.
Second—l then asked you if at the conference on
the preceding Saturday I had not, to avoid mis-
understanding, requested you to state what you
intended to do; and further, if, in reply to that in-
quiry, you had not referred to my former conver-
sations, saying 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—l 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 on the case of Mr.
Stanton, and you replied that such was the under-
standing, 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 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. This account of what passed between
us at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th inst.
widely differs from that contained in your com-
munication, for it shows that instead of having
' stated our conversations as given iu the letter'
which has made this reply necessary, you ad-
mitted that my recital of them was entirely.
accurate. Sincerely anxious, however, to be cor-
rect in my statements, I have, to-day, read this
narration of what occurred on the 14th inst. to the
members of the Cabinet, who were then present.
They, without exception, agree to its accuracy. It
is only necessary to add that on Wednesday morn-
ing, the 15th, you called on me in company with
Lieut. Gen. Sherman, and after some preliminary
conversation, you remarked that an article in the
National lntelligencer of that date did you much
injustice. I replied that I had not read the Intelli-
gencer of that morning. You 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 statement of the misunderstanding between
us was substantially correct. On the 17th I caused
it to be read to four of the five members of the Ca-
binet 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 mis-
understanding, to make the simple recital of facts.
—Very respectfully yours,
"ANDREW JOHNSON."
To this letter the General replied as follows :—" Sir
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of
your communication of the 31st ult., in answer to
mine of the 28th. After a careful reading and com-
parison of it wiih the article in the National In-
telligencer of the 15th ult., and the article over the
initials " J. B. S." in the New York World on the
27th ult., purporting to be based upon your state-
ment, and that of the members of the Cabinet therein
named, I find it only to be a reiteration, only some-
what more in detail, of the many and gross misre-
presentations contained in these articles, and which
my statement of facts sets forth in my letter of the
28th ult. was intended to correct, and here, I re-
assert the correctness of my statements in that
letter; anything in your reply to it to the con-
trary 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 on the 14th ult., as to suffer their names to
be made the basis of the charges in the newspaper ar-
ticles referred to,or agree to 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 ult., without any promise on my part, either
expressed 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 ac-
tion was had, or that I would see you again at any
fixed time on the subject. The performance of the
promises alleged to have been made by me would
have involved a resistance of the law, and an incon-
sistency with the whole history of my connection
with the suspension of Mr. Stanton. From our
conversation and my written protest of August 1,
1867, against the removal of Mr. Stanton, you must

office, whether sustained in the suspension or not ; have known that my greatest objection to his re-
you knew what reasons had induced the President 1 moval was the fear that some one would be ap-
to ask from you a promise ; you also knew that in pointed in his stead who would, by opposition to the
case your views of duty did not accord with his laws relating to the restoration of the Southern
own convictions, it was his purpose to fill your States to their proper relation to the Government,
place by another appointment. Even ignoring the embarrass the army in the performance of the duties
existence of a positive understanding between us, especially imposed upon it by the laws, and that it
the conclusions were plainly deducible from our was to prevent such an appointment that I ac-
various conversations. It is certain, however, that cepted the appointment of Secretary of. War, ad
even under those circumstances you did not offer interim, and not for the purpose of enabling you to
to return the place to my possession, but, according get rid of Mr. Stanton, by my withholding it
to your own statement, placed yourself in a position from him, in opposition to the law, or not doing
where, could I have anticipated your action, I would so myself, surrender to one who, as the state-
have been compelled to ask from you, as I was meat and assumptions in your communication
plainly indicate, was sought. And it was to avoid
compelled to ask of your predecessor in the War
this danger, as well as to relieve you from the per-
Department, a letter of resignation, or else to
resort to the more disagreeable expedient of sus- sonal embarrassment which Mr. Stanton's rein-
pending you by the appointment of a successor.
statement would place you, that I urged the ap-
pointment of Governor Cox, believing that it would
As stated in your letter, the nomination of Gover-
nor Cox, of Ohio, for the office of Secretary of War be agreeable to you, and also to Mr. Stanton, satis-
was suggested to me. This appointment as Mr. fled as I was that it was the good of the country,
Stanton's successor was urged in your name, and and not the office, which the latter desired. On
it was said that his selection would save further the 13th ult., in the presence :of General Sherman,
embarrassment. I did not think that in the selection I stated to you that I thought Mr. Stanton would
resign, but did not say I would advise him to do
of a Cabinet officer, I should be trammelled by such
_ so. On the 18th I did agree, with General Sher-
considerations. I was prepared to take the re
sponsibility of deciding the question in accordance man, to go and advise him to that course ; and on
the 19th I had an interview alone with Mr. Stanton,
with my ideas of constitutional duty, and having
w
determined upon a course which I deemed right and which led me to the conclusion that any advice to
proper, was anxious to learn the steps you would him of this kind would be useless, and so I informed
take, should the possession of the War bepartment General Sherman. Before I consented to advise
be demanded by Mr. Stanton. Had your action Mr. Stanton to resign, I understood from him, in a
been in conformity with the understanding between communication on the subject immediately after
us, Ido not believe that the embarrassment would his reinstatement, that it was his opinion that the
have attained its present proportions, or that the Act of Congress entitled an Act to Supply Vacancies
probability of its repetition would have been so
in the Executive Department in certain cases ap-
great. I know that, with a view to an early ter-
proved February 20, 1863, was repealed by sub
urination of State affairs so detrimental to the pub-
sequent legislation, which materially influenced
lic interests, you voluntarily offered, both on Mon- my action. Previous to this time I had no doubt
day 15th inst., and on the succeeding Sunday, to
that the law of 1863 was still in force, and, not-
call upon Mr. Stanton and urge upon him that the withstanding my action, a fuller examination of the
good of the service required his resignation. I law leaves a question in my mind whether it is or is
confess that I considered your proposal as a sort not repealed. This being the case, I could not now
advise his resignation, lest the same danger I appre-
of reparation for the failure on your part to act
in accordance with au understanding, more than hended from his first removal might follow. The
once repeated, which I thought had received course you would have it understood I agreed to
your full assent, and under which you could pursue was in violation of law and the orders from
You, have returned to me the office which I had con-
ou, while the course I did pursue, and which I

never doubted you fully understood, was in accord-
ance with law, and not in disobedience to any orders
of my superior. And now, Mr. President, when
my honour as a soldier and integrity as a man have
been so violently assailed, pardon me for saying
that 1 can but regard this whole matter from begin-
ning to end as an attempt to involve me in the re-
sistance of law, for which you hesitated to assume
the responsibility, in order thus to destroy my cha-
racter before the country, lamin a measure con-
fir►ued in this conclusion by your recent orders
directing me to disobey the orders from the Secre-
tary of War, my superior and your subordinate,
without having countermanded his authority whom
lam to disobey. With the assurance, Mr. Presi-
dent, that nothing less than a vindication of my
personal honour and character could have induced
this correspondence on my part, I have the honour
to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
" U. S. GRANT, General."
(To be continued.)

Foreign Mail Pac List.