Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1868-02-06

ssreiiectiori, you should prefer MOTTO become
"a party tosthe controversy, or should con-
''clnde that 1t would be your duty to surren-
'.der the Department to Mr.. Stanton upon
faction in his favor by the Senate, you were
.sto return the Office TO me prior TO deci,
..sion by lie Senate, in order that If l desired
..to do So might designate some one 10
succeed you.
Other conversations were had, upon Inc
same subject, says Johnson, but II Is not
necessary, however TO refer to any OF Them
excepting that of Saturday, the llth inst,
of which Geaeral Grants letter speaks. lie
says AS it was then known that the Sen
ate had proceeded to consider the case oil
MIR. Stanton, i was anxious to learn your
determination.
After a proiracted interview, during which |
the provisions of the Tenure OF Ofllce bill
were fully discussed, yea said that, as had
been agreed upon in our first conference,you
would either return the office to my posses
sion in timu 10 enable me to appoint sue
cessor before final action by the Senate
upon Mr. Stantons suspension, or would
remain as its head, awaiting decision OF
the question by judicial proceedings. 1t
was then understood that there would be
further conference on Monday, by which
time supposed you would be prepared to
inform me of your final decision.
You failed, however, TO fulfil the engage
ment, and on Tuesday notified me, in writ
ing OF the receipt of your official notification
of the action Of the Senate in The case OF
Mr.. Stanton, and ut the same time informed
me that, according to the act regulating the
tenure of certain civil officers, your func-
tions as Secretary of War nd interim ceased
from the moment of the receipt of the no.
tice. You thus, in disregard of the under
standing between us, vacated the office with
out having given me police of your intci-
ton to do so. II is but just, however, to
say that in your communication you claim
that You did inform me Of your purpose, and
thus fulfilled the promise made in our last
preceding conversation on this subject.
| The President concludes as follows =
| You conclude your communication with
| a reference to our conversation at the meet
ing of the Cabinet held on Tuesday, the nth
| inst. In your account of what then occurred
you say that after the President had given
| his version of your previous conversation,
YOU stated them substantially as given In
your letter; that you in nowisc admitted the
correctness of them though, to soften the
evident contradictions my statement, gave |,
said, abiding to our first communication on
the subject, the President might have un-
derstood 1t in the way he said, viz, that
| DrOnlSeu 10 resign, IL ulu hbt icoist tno ic=
instatement made no such promise" My
recollection of what then TRANSFERRED is da-
metrically the reverse of your narration.
In the presence of the Cabinet | asked
YOU, first, IL in a conversation which took
place shortly after your appointment as Sec
rotary ad interim, you did not agree either
to remain at the head of the War Depart
mcnt and abide any judicial proceedings
that might follow non-concurrence by the
Senate in Mr.. Stanton's suspension, or should
you wish not to become involved in such q
controversy, TO put me in the same position
with rcspcc, to the office as occupied pre-
vious to your appointment by returning it Ia
me in time to anticipate such action by the
i Senate. This you admitted.
} Second. | then asked you II at the confer
{ ence on the preceding Saturday had not &c
: avoid misunderstanding, requested you tt
4 state what you intended to do and further
H., in reply to that inquiry. you had not re
{ fcrred to my former conversation, saying
0 that understood your position, and thai
d your action would he consistent with the i'm
Z Outstanding which had been reached. IL
, these questions. you also replied in the af
II firmatve.
: Third. next asked if at the conclusion
Il of our interview on Saturday it was not I'm
d derstood that we were to have another con
n ference on Monday, before final action by
S the Senate on the case of Mr.. Stanton. 70,
il replied that such was the understanding, bu
v that you did not suppose the Senate won'l
II act so soon; that on Monday you had been
l. engaged in conference with General Sher
IS man, and were occupied with many littl
il matters, and asked if General Sherman ha,
not called on that day.
. What relevancy General Shermans vsi
t. TO me on Monday had with the purpose 70
70 which you were to have called am at n los
m to perceive, as he certainly did moi niorl
)r me whether you had determined TO retail
/ possession of the office or to afford me a
10 opportunity TO appoint n successor in az
1t vance of any attempted reinstatement of MI
II Stanton. This account of what passed bt
/. tween us ut the Cabinet meeting on the 1t
le instant widely differs from that contained
is your communication, for ii shows that, i
g. stead of having stated our conversations
re given in the letter which has made this rcpl
ie necessary, you admitted that my recital I
L. them was entirely accurate.
Sincerely anxious, however, to be CORE
A. in my statements, have to-day read tn
is narrative of what occurred on the ilh ms
/ to the members of the Cabinet who WEI
IS then present. They, without exception
4 agree in its accuracy. II is only nccessai
ye to add that, on Wednesday morning, Il
| 10Th, you called on me in company wit
e. Lieutenant General Sherman, and, aft
nj some preliminary conversation, you n
he marked TINT IN article in the National Int
[r lgencer of that date did you much njusiic
Of replied that | had not rcad the Intellgel
nv Ger of that morning.
If. You first told that il was your intention
adj urge Mr.. Stanton TO resign his Office. Ait
M you had withdrawn carefully read the a
adj llcle Of which you had spoken, and four
ne that lis statement of the misundersandii
nj between us was substantially correct.
IL the 18th caused il to be read To four of Il
five members of the Cabinet who were pr
sent at our conference on the Nth, and tn,
m. concurrrd in the general accuracy of
| statements respecting our conversation upt
re- that occasion. In reply to your commun
en cation have deemed it proper, in order
lar prevent further misunderstanding, to maj
of this simple recital of facts. Very respet
his fully yours. ANDREW Johnson.
m Gen. L. S. Grant, Comdg u S. Army.
Of
by Headquarters ARMY OF THE UNIT
HE STATES, WAsHlNGToN, ID. c., Feb 3, 1865.
d | To His Excellency, Andrew johnson, Pre-
The ident Of the United Siates.--Sir; have d
ion honor to acknowledge the receipt of 70
viii communication of the 3lst ult., in answ
net to mine of the 18th ult. After carei
re, reading and comparison of it with the arti,
10 III thc Nal ional lNitHtYeNctf Ot the Ia
,si ult and the article over the initials J. b.
,ph in the New York World of the 18th I'll
he purporling to be based upon your statcme
on and that of members of the Cabinet there
CHI named, lind it only TO he hut reitcutio
me- only somewhat more in detail, of the ma
not and gross Misrepresentation contained
uch those articles, and which my statement
of the facts set forth in my letter of the 2s
lly. ut. was intended to correct. And here
rensscrt The CORRECTNESS Of my stttte,le
!. IL that letter, anything il your reply
10 the c01itrd1y notwithstanding.
the confess my surprise that the Cabinet
III ilcers referred to should so greatly misapp
bend the facts in the matter of admissit
len alleged to have been made by me 1t
TO Cabinet meeting of the lllh uli., as to S
ent, Ter theirname to be made the basis of
the charges i'll the newspaper articles refer
by TO, or agree to the accuracy, as you aft
the they do, of your account Of what occur
by at that meeting. You know that we part
n. on Saturday, the llth ult., without any D
mise on my part, either expressed or /
piled, TO the effect that l would hold or
AL D.,FC "