Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-09-04
AM MIDDLE

The Washington ietter-writers and the
press together have made sn awful mud
die Of the controversy or discussion be-
tween General GRANT and the President.
We put together the following para
graphs, out OF which it is perhaps posi-
bic 10 extract the real truth.
POWERS OF GEN. GRANT UNDER THE
RECONSTRUCTION ACT.
The discussion in political circles to-
dav mas been over an sualyZ2tiOn Of the
reconstruction act passed by congress in
July. and the powers it conferred on Gen.
Grant. To Is admitted by the opponents
OF the president that il is not so broad IS
IL was first believed e be, when the con-
Fict between the executive and Gen.
Grant first arose on Tuesday, for it seems
doubtful il gives ali the powers to the
general of the army, In check OF the
president. which was intended, and that
il has been supposed 70 do. Sec
ton three Of that bill provides that
the general Of the army Of The United
States shall be invested with al b
powers of supervision, removal, appoint
ment and detail granted in the presiding
section TO district commanders. By the
second section tn general Of the army is
NL...EA III NANNAAA4AaN 4AA eABNA -"Aa6
powers ia regard to suspension, removal,
appointment aud detail If any district
commander appoints dislOyal persons to
Ins civil municipal offices within the
district, Gen. Grant a remove them
or. II the district commander suspendsO or
removes loyal incumbents, the general
Of the army can annul his action, thereby
reinstating the removed officials but
Gen. Grant now thinks his authority
seems 10 be limited to these coordinate
and supervising powers in regard TO sus-
pension, removal, appointment and de-
tail. II. for Instance, the commander OF
the fifth district should issue an order,
under the advice Of the president, 70
postpone the election ordered by Gen.
Sheridan in Louisiana, in September,
Gen. Grant would have no power 10 in
t5rpOse.
POWERS OF GIN GRANT.
NEW YORK, August ga Washing
ton special to the Post says: AFTER
careful investigation, it is generally
agreed among friends Of Gen. Grant
that the supplemental reconstruction act
confines his authority over the district
commanders solely to the approval or
d~isappr0val Of their acts in removing
rebel officials, aud does not extend 70 all
sets Of said communicated as post
postpOning elections, changing registra-
zion, etc. This is regarded a. 3 great
omission by congress, and was not so w.
derst0Od by Gen. Grant when Gen.
Thomas was directed by bin 70 continue
in force every order Of Gen. S~heridsn's.'
TIE PRESIDENT AND GEN. GRANT.
To the Western Associated Press
WASHINGTON, August 29.-The IN
tgIiqeBceT Of to-day feels authorized
70 state that the reports Of any
personal difference between the presi-
dent and Gen. Grant are unfoundsd
but that paper Is not correct in snnounc-
ing in the same connection Whist
ever may be their respective views ~ to
matters Of detail, there Is no conflict be-
tween them - TO the ~prerogatives Of
each.' On the contrary, it is known
that there are very decided differences
regarding legal questions affecting their
respective powers aud duties under the
reconstruction acts.
THE PRESIDENT AND THE GENERAL.
There is official authority for DENYING
50 much o. the statement, which ap-
pears in the Washington and Puilsdel-
mia Journals relative 10 the interview be-
tween Gen. Grant and the president
Yesterday, - represents the presidents
ASKING NHtLs AHl&AA 10 WNLlAahM his let
Ter about the order sending Gen. Han
cock 10 New Orleans nor did he ten
Gen. Grant that hisletter looked a little |
like iusu5ordinatiOn. Both Gen. Grant
and the president state that their discus
sion, Notwithstanding the variance Of.
opiuion, was exceedingly friendly.
Gen. Grant wrote "a president to-day,
asking the withdrawal Of his letter pro
testing against the form Of the order
~anding Gen. Hancock to New Orleans.
Tbe president returned the letter, as re-
guested, aud as il was virtually super
seded by the discussion yesterday, it will
not be made public.
Generals are officers Is little named in
the Constitution a. LieUtenauts and Cor
morals. They have no Constitutional
rov,ers. They are subordinate officers Of
The army, under the COMMANDMENT
Chief whom the Constitution invests
with al the Executive power. Even
with his consent Congress eau not take
from him and appropriate {. itself any
part Of THAT power, OF make a subordi-
nate officer independent Of him, to obey
its orders. BY making the President the
commandments and investing him
with sill the Executive power, the Con-
~stitution made him, in reality, an
elective king. To learn the extent Of
his powers as Commander-in-Chie a
the Constitution does not define them,
we have 10 inquire what were the powers
Of the King Of Great Britain when our
States were Colonies, as COMMANDMENT
Chief Of the land and naval forces, as we
have, ia some instances, TO refer to the
English Constitution 10 ascertain the
Presidents powers in civil matters. As
10 these, the trainers Of the Constitution
greatly diminished the Executive powers
and imposed on them restrictions and
limitations; but they still left them regal
&, their nature. For the fathers had lost
.o,ao their reverence for the British
Cons+ftution. in those great essentials in
1870 10 secure the liberties Of the peo-
@1-by = malicious distribution and lmita-
t,on 81 the powers Of government. What
,ovsl than the unlimited power Of
IaSso1 What, than the veto pOver9