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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EV. ENING, MARCH 4, 1868.

CONGRESS.

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-
stitution that amendment was a part of it. It had
neon 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-
wan 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.

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 tho Executive shall insist upon die
observance of these rights by foreign nations. if th' see
rights shall be contravened it is made the duty of the Pre-
sident to so inform Congress without delay, so that that
body may take immediate means 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-
meat the performance of public duties under a foreign Go-
vernment ; 3d, by making his domicile in a foreign. Govern-
meat without intent to return. Citizens of theb finited
States in every part of the world, while engaged in lawful
business, shall be entitled to the protection of the G overn-
ment ; but protection shall not be accorded to the fol lowing
classes of persons : —lst. Those who have renounce I their
citizenship by either of the three modes prescribed above.
2. Those who may bo guilty of a crime against a. _foreign
country, committed within its jurisdiction. 3d. T hose who
by treason or other crime against the United States ,hall have
forfeited their rights of citizens. 4th. Those who shall
have been absent from the United States for in ore than
five years continuously, and who shall have failed to make
return of their income and property for taxat ion, and
shall have paid no taxes, &c. oth. Those who shalt engage
in the service of any foreign belligerent contrar7 to the
provisions of the neutrality laws of the United St. des. 6th.
Those who may connect themselves with any a.;sociation
in any foreign country whose organization reptims citi-
zenship of such country as a qualification for mom bership
thereof. 7th. Those naturalized citizens who Audi return
to the country of their birth with intent to resume a domi-
cile therein, which intent shall bo 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. Tho hill then enacts that any one who
has lost his citizenship by any of the above modus, 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
bad 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 heretotore 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.

THE GREAT STANTON CASE.

THE GRANT AND JOHNSON CORRESPONDENCE.

(From the Anglo-American Times.)
As the great Stanton case appears to be the
match destined to ignite the combustibles gathered
at Washington, we give the details almost in full.
On the 3d February a resolution was agreed to iu
the House calling for the correspondence between
the President and General Grant relative to the
surrender of the War Office to Secretary Stanton
on his re-instatement by the Senate. Next day the
Secretary of War forwarded to the Speaker copies
furnished him by General Grant purporting to be all
the correspondence the General had ou the subject.
Mr. Stanton, in his forwarding letter, states that he
had no communication with the President since last
August. In obedience to the Act of Congress, he
had resumed the duties of his office, and no order
had been issued from the Department in the name
of the President, that he had received no orders
from him, nor written, nor had personal commu-
nication with him. General Grant's first letter is
dated January 25, 1868. It will be observed that
this was Saturday, and he commences by alluding
to a request he had made on Friday to substitute
written for the verbal instructions Mr. Johnson
he had previously given not to obey any order
from Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War,
unless he knew it can from the President.
His message in reply left doubt in Grant's
mind, and, to prevent the chance of misun-
derstanding, he renewed the application for writ-
ten instructions. He is compelled to ask for this in
consequence of the gross misrepresentations affect-
ing his personal honour circulated in the press,
and purporting to come from the President, of
either private conversations with the President,
or in Cabinet meetings. 4‘ What is written,"
the General says, " admits of no misunder-
standing, and in view of the misrepresentations
sent forward, it will be well to state the facts of
the case." General Grant has learnt the bitter les-
son that he cannot serve two masters ; and he has
yet to learn that what is written can admit of mis-
understanding. The following is the General's ver-
sion of the circumstances :--" Some time after I
assumed the duties of Secretary of War, ad interim,
the President asked my views as to the course Mr.
Stanton would have to pursue, in case the Senate
should not concur in his suspension, to obtain pos-
session of his office. My reply was, in substance,
that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts
to reinstate him, illustrating my position by citing
the grounds I had taken in the case of the Balti-
more Police Commissioners. In that case, I did not
doubt the technical right of Governor Swann to re-
move the old commissioners and to appoint their
successors, as the old commissioners refused to give
up. However, I contended that no resource was left
but to appeal to the courts. Finding that the Pre-
sident was desirous of keeping Mr. Stanton out of
office, whether sustained in the suspension or not, I
stated that I had not looked particularly into the
Tenure-of-Office Bill, but that what I had stated
was a general principle, and if I should change my
mind in this particular case, I would inform hint of
the fact. Subsequently, on reading the Tenure-of-
Office Bill closely, I found that I could not, with-
out violation of the law, refuse to vacate the office
of Secretary of War the moment Mr. Stanton was
reinstated by the Senate, even though the President
ordered me to remain, which he never did. 'raking
this view of the subject, and learning on Saturday,
the 11th inst., that the Senate had taken up the
subject of Mr. Stanton's suspension, after some
conversation with Lieut.-Gen. Sherman and some
members of my staff, in which I stated that the law
left me no discretion as to my action, should Mr.
Stanton be reinstated, and that I intended to
inform the President, I went to the President
for the sole purpose of making this decision
known, and I did N. make it known, In

doing this .1 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 14th,
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 I 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
with 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 he must clearly have anticipated.
The noticeable point is that the General when he
arrived at his final decision not to support the
President in what he considered a breach of 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
War 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 our
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 of11;ial 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 Ur, Stanton out of

office, whether sustained in the suspension or not ;
you knew what reasons had induced the President
to ask from you a promise ; you also knew that in
case your views of duty did not accord with his
own convictions, it was his purpose to fill your
place by another appointment. Even ignoring the
existence of a positive understanding between us,
the conclusions were plainly deducible from our
various conversations. It is certain, however, that
even under those circumstances you did not offer
to return the place to my possession, but, according
to your own statement, placed yourself in a position
where, could I have anticipated your action, I would
have been compelled to ask from you, as I was
compelled to ask of your predecessor in the War
Department, a letter of resignation, or else to
resort to the more disagreeable expedient of sus-
pending you by the appointment of a successor.
As stated in your letter, the nomination of Gover-
nor Cox, of Ohio, for the office of Se3rotary of War
was suggested to me. This appointment as Mr.
Stanton's successor was urged in your name, and
it was said that his selection would save further
embarrassment. I did not think that in the selection
of a Cabinet officer, I should be trammelled by such
considerations. I was prepared to take the re-
sponsibility of deciding the question in accordance
with my ideas of constitutional duty, and having
determined upon a course which I deemed right and
proper, was anxious to learn the steps you would
take, should the possession of the War Department
be demanded by Mr. Stanton. Had your action
been in conformity with the understanding between
us, Ido not believe that the embarrassment would
have attained its present proportions, or that the
probability of its repetition would have been so
great. I know that, with a view to an early ter-
mination of State affairs so detrimental to the pub-
lic interests, you voluntarily offered, both on Mon-
day 15th inst., and on the succeeding Sunday, to
call upon Mr. Stanton and urge upon him that the
good of the service required his resignation. I
confess that I considered your proposal as a sort
of reparation for the failure on your part to act
in accordance with an understanding, more than
once repeated, which I thought had received
your full assent, and under which you could
have returned to me the office which I had con-
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 ybu 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 iu 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 in 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
Liout. 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-
geneer 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

have known that my greatest objection to his re-
moval was the fear that some one would be ap-
pointed in his stead who would, by opposition to the
laws relating to the restoration of the Southern
States to their proper relation to the Government,
embarrass the army in the performance of the duties
especially imposed upon it by the laws, and that it
was to prevent such an appointment that I ac-
cepted the appointment 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 the law, or not doing
so myself, surrender to one who, as the state-
ment and assumptions in your communication
plainly indicate, was sought. And it was to avoid
this danger, as well as to relieve you from the per-
sonal embarrassment which Mr. Stanton's rein-
statement would place you, that I urged the ap-
pointment of Governor Cox, believing that it would
be agreeable to you, and also to Mr. Stanton, satis-
fied as I was that it was the good of the country,
and not the otilee, which the latter desired. Oa
the 13th ult., in the presence 'of General Sherman,
I stated to you that I thought Mr. Stanton would
resign, but did not say I would advise him to do
so. On the 18th I did agree,- with General Sher-
man, 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 this kind would be useless, and so I informed
General Sherman. Before -I consented to advise
Mr. Stanton to resign, I understood from him, in a
communication on the subject immediately after
his reinstatement, that it was his opinion that the
Act of Congress entitled au Act to Supply Vacancies
in the Executive Department in certain cases ap-
proved February 20, 1863, was repealed by sub
sequent legislation, which materially influenced
my action. Previous to this time I had no doubt
that the law of 1863 was still in force, and, not-
withstanding 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 appre-
hended from his first removal might follow. The
course you would have it understood I agreed to
pursue was in violation of law and the orders from
you, 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-
firmed 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 Packet List.

MAILS DUE.

&ustralia and New Zealand, via Southampton March 23.

Ditto, via Marseilles .........Marc:i 22.

Ditto, via Panama March 3).
Brazil, Buenos Ayres, and Monte Video .... March 5.
Ditto, by French packet
Caps Voids, by Brazil packet March 5.
cape of Good Hope. Ascension, and St. Helena March 2
China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton March 5.
Ditto, via Marseilles
Falkland Islands March 5.
Gibraltar, via Southampton
India, via Southampton . . ...March 1.

Ditto, via MarseiLes March 9.
Malta, Egypt, ,to.

Ditto, Marseilles.. March 9•
Mauritius, Cape of Good Hope, and Natal, via
Southampton llaroh
Ditt ), Marseilles March 15.
Newfoundland ...... .......
l.
Portugal

Ditto, by privLie ship to (Vont, ..
Ditto rltto to Lisbon
United States, anada, California, &c., by British

packet .3l.trch 9
Ditto, by L. Lited States packet
Ditto ditto 'New York)
Ditto ditto Niw York)

Ditto ditto ( Baltimore)
Ditto, by Canadian packet March e.
West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Tenerin
West Indies and Pacific (except Mexico and Baha-
mas)
Cubi, and vlexico March O.
Bahamas, via New Y liarch 25

Bermuda, via Halifax

E. D. Holbrook, the delegate from Idaho, on
Wednesday, Feb. 13, as the finishing blow in an argument
with Delegate Hooper, of Utah, knocked him down in one
of the Senate lobbies. The discussion began on the con-
firmation of Isaac 0. Gibbs as governor of Idaho, and
Mr. Hooper gave Holbrook the lie direct, and was answered
with a blow. Last winter Holbrook caned a gentleman
at Willard's Hotel.

The Hon. James Guthrie, Democratic Senator
from Kentucky, has resigned on account of increasing la"
firmities. Ho will be succeeded by another Democrat.
Charles T. Tuckerman, of New York, has been
nominated by tho President, Minister to Greece. This is
a new mission, in return for the compliment of the Greek
Government in dispatching a Minister to Washington.
Charles P. Huntington, long and well known a 5
an able lawyer and an upright judge, died at Boston ou
the 6th Feb., about 65 years of age. He was a son of
the late Rev. Dan. Huntington, and brother of the
Rev. F. D. Huntington ; and had served in the Legis-
lature with distinction. Ho was a graduate of Harvard
College, of the class of 1822, not more than one-third of
which aro now living. The town of Huntington, la
Hampshire county, was named in his honour.

Bernard Marigny died lately. lle wad born ati
New Orleans in 1781. Descended from an ancient familYt
he inherited a largo fortune, and lived in a sumptuous style'
While Louis Philippe resided in the United States ho w 36
th© guest of 31. Marigny.

[ADVER.TISEMENT.]— Consumption, and all nervous, bilious,
stomach and liver complaints in every stage are only aggravate"
and accelerated by drugs of every description, but perfectly
curable by Du Barry's health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food;
as proved by thousands of cases which had :been considered
hopeless; such as indigestion (dyspepsia), cough, asthma, con:
sumption, habitual constipation, diarrhoea, all gastric derange
meats, hemorrhoids, liver complaints, flatulency, nervousness'
biliousness, fevers, sore throats, diphtheria. cataats, colds, in
flueuza, noises in the head and ears, rheumatism, gout, WWl',
rities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness'
acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debility, dropsY:
cramps, spasms, nausea and sickness, even in pregnancy or a:
sea, si.iking tits, bronchitis, scrofula, tightness of the clict,,
pains at the pit of the stomach, and be.ween the shoulders, &t,
We quoie a few.—The Pope's health restored by Du Barry
Food. Cure No 68,413.—"R0me, July 21, 1866.—The health of
the Holy Father is excellent, especially sinco, abandoning al
other remedies, he has confined himself entirely to Du Barry
Revalenta, Arabica, Food, of which he consumes a plateful
at every meal. It has pro :bleed a suiprising!y benetle,?i
effect on his health, and his Holiness cannot praise Y 1.17
excellent food too highly." From the "Gazette du MIA
Jeiy 25. Cure No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, timber user'
chant, of Frimley, Surrey, of thirty years' diseased lung',
spitting of blood, liver derangement, and partial deafness.;
Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies, Lord Lieutenant. 0;
Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia. No. 49,832. "
years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousness'
asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasms, sickness an
vomiting.—MariaJoly." Important Caution.—Beware of the niaalt
unsavoury and more than sloppy imitations to which, withou
authority, Baron Liebig's name is most audaciously attached.
In tins at Is. 11(1.; 1 lb., 2s 9d.; 2 lbs., 4s. 6d, ; 5 lbs. 111";
121b5., 225.; 21 lbs., 40s.—BARRY Du BARRY and Co., No;
Regent-street, London; also Fortnum and Mason, 182, Piccaßibnl6'
and at 61, Gracechurch-street; 4, Cheapside; 63, 150, and 27 '
Oxford-street 330 Strand; and all grocers and chemists.