The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1868-02-26


lowing:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Feb. 10, 1868.
G6nefat-The extraordinary character of your letter
OF the Sd instant would to preclude any reply on
my part, but the manner in which publicity has been
gwen to the correspondence of which that letter forms
apart, and the grave questions which involved
quire that in justice to myself, should take this
method Of giving, as proper sequel to the commune
cations which have passed between u.s. the statements
of five members of the cabinet, who were present on
the occasion of onr conversation the l4th ultmo
well copies Of the letters which they have addressed
to the subject, accordingly herewith enclosed
GU speak of my letter OF the lst u reterative
of the many and gross Misrepresentation contained in
certain newspaper articles and reassert the correct
ness Of the statements contained in your communica
ton or the 18th ult, adding land here give your
words, anything in your reply to it to the contrary
Notwithstanding" When controversy upon matters
lacl eeches the point to which this has been brought
TURNER accusation or denial between the immediate
parties should cease, especially when upon either side
1t loses that character of respectful discussion which is
required by the relations which the parties stand tn
each other, and degenerates in tone and temper Tn
such if there is nothing to rely upon hit onnos
ing statements, conclusions must be drawn from those
statements alone, and from whatever intrinsic proba-
btes they offered in favor of against either of the
parties, they should not shrink from the controversy.
bGttortanately it is not left to this test alone. There
were i've cabinet officers present at conversation
the details of which in my letter of the 2sth ult
and which you allow yourself to say, contains many
and gross Misrepresentation" These gentlemen heard
that conversation and read my statement they speak
for themselves, and leave the proof without word of
comment. '777~
a
ton to notice some of the statements contained your
letter You say the performance of promises alleged
to have been made by to the President would have
involved resistance to the law and inconsistency with
'he whole history OF my connection with the susyen
sion OF Mr. Stanton" You then state that YOU chad
sears that the President would, the removal of Mr.
otanton, appoint some in his place who would en-
Darrass the army in carrying out the reconstruction
acts and to prevent such an appointment accepted
the purpose of enabling you to get rid of Mr. Stanton
by E'y withholding from him in opposition to the law
or not doing so myself to who would.' AS the
statements and assumptions in your communication
plainly indicate that you sought it, first of ALL as YOU
here admit that from the very beginning of what YOU
term whole history of my connection with Mr. Stan
tons SUSPENSION you Intended to crcumyent the
PRESIDENT and to carry out that intent that Won
accepted the appointment, and this in your mind
at the time OF your acceptance, and it then in obe
ience to the order OF your SUPERIOR has heretofore
been assumed, that you accept the office. You knew
it was the Presidents purpose prevent Mr. Stanton
from assuming the office of Secretary of War and Won
intended to defeat that purpose and accepted the Of
ice, not in the interest of President but of Mr.
Stanton If this purpose, so entertained by you had
been confined to yourself and it, when acceptino the
Office, you had done so with mental reservation to
Illustrate the President, it would have been DECEPTION
IN ethics, IN which such course is aowable-buty YOU
cannot stand even upon that questionable ground The
history of your connection, as written by Yourself
places you in difficult predicament, and shows thai
you not only concealed your design from the President
put induced him to suppose that you would carry out
his purpose-to keep Mr. Stanton out of office by re-
tanning it yourself after the attempted restoration by
L.
his right by judicial decision. I now give that bart
OF this story as written by your letter of the
28th ult: Some time after assumed the duties of
Secretary of War ad interim, the President asked NV
views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have to pu-
sue, IN case the Senate would in his suspen
SION 70 OBTAIN the oflice My reply in substance
that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts
to reInstate him. illustrating my position by citing the
ground had taken in the of the Baltimore Police
COMMISSIONERS! now, at that time, as YOU adm;t in
your letter of the Sd uit YOU held The office for tho
very purpose odefeatng atappeal to the courts You
say that In accepting the Office motive was to
prevent the President from appointing some other per-
son who would retain possession" and thus make in
dcla proceeding necessary. You knew that the Pres
,a e was aun my e st the office with any
resort to the courts. You perfectly understood in this
INTERVIEW, some time after you accented the office that
lhe resident not content with your silence, desired
that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts
the President had reposed confidence in you before
he knew your views, and that confidence had been vim
lated, mi ht have been said that he made mistake.
but in the violation of the confidence reposed in YOU
after that conversation, there could be no mistake of
his or OF yours This fact alone needs be stated At
the date OF this conversation you did not intend hold
the office with the purpose of forcing Mr. Stanton into
court but did hold it them and had accepted to pre-
vent that course being carried In other words
you said to the President That is the proper course
and to yourself u have accepted this Office and now
hold 1T to defeat that course" The that you
make IN subsequent paragraph of that letter of the
18th u that afterwards you changed your views as to
what would be the proper course, has nothing to do
consideration.
that before yQE changed your views you had secretly
to do the very thing, which at last YOU did
surrender the office to Mr. Stanton. You certainly did
not change your views the course You had
out for yourself from the beginning.
will only notice one statement in your letter
Of the Sd INST VIZ That the performance of the prom
Use alleged to have been made by You would have in
VOWED yon IN resistance to the law. know of no
statute that would have been violated had YOU carried
out your promises in good faith, had you rendered
your resignation when you concluded not to be made
party to any legal proceedings. You add al am in
measure confirmed in this conclusion by your recent
order to disobey orders from e Secretary of War; my
superior ana your subordinate without having COM
ermanded his authority to issue the orders I am to
lisobey On the oath ultimo you addressed note to
ne President requesting in writing, an order given to
ou verbally i've days before to disregard orders from
dr. Santon Secretary of War, until you knew from
he President himself that they his orders On Z
he Goth, in compliance with your request T did give
instructions in writing to obey any orders from
he War Department. assumed to be issued by direc-
ion OF the President unless such order known by
he General commanding the army of the United States
have been authorised by the Executive There are
ONE orders which Secretary of War may issue with
mt the authority of the President; there are others
which he uses SIMPLY the agent of the President and
which purport to be by direction of the President and
or such orders the President is responsible and he
mould therefore know and understand what they are
efore giving such directions. Mr.. Stanton in his let
er OF the 4th inst. which accompanied the published
correspondence with the President since the 18th of
ngust says that since ho resumed the duties of the
flee he has continued to discharge them without any
ersona o. written communication with the President
le further adds: No orders have been issued from
his Department in the name of the President with my
nowledge, and have received no orders from him :,
thus seems that Mr. Stanton now DISCHARGES the du
es of the War Department without any reference to
he President and without using his name Myorders a.
ad reference only to the orders assumed to be issued
y the President: 1t would seem from Mr. Stanton's
.tter that you had received such orders from him m
longh III your note to the President on the 18th inst
which you acknowledge the reception of the written
riders OF JAN 29th, say you have been informed bv
r. Stanton that he has received any order imtno
IS authority to issue orders to the army in accordance
18th the practice of the Department. and Won State that
lille this authority to the War Department is not coui
1t will be satisfactory evidence to me- (you
lat any orders issued from the War Department. by
rectlon OF the President authorised by the Exec
i've Inc President issues order to YOU to obey
0 order from the War Department, purportno to be
ade by his direction, until you haye referred it to him s.
# approval gu reply that you have received the =
residents order and viii not obey it. but will obey an
'der purportlng to De given By his direction If it
'mes from the War Department. 3ou gill obey no |
rect order from the President but will obey his in
rect order IT, as you say, it has been the practice
the War Department to issue orders in the name Of
e President, without his direction does not the pre- ~
order you have requested and have received change
practice as to the General of the army? Could not
Q President conntermand any such order issued in
e name of the President to do a special act and an
der from the President himself not to do the act
ID IN this case is there doubt as to which you are to
ey You answer the question when you say to the
'esdent in your letter of the Sd inst the Secretary
w ar Superior and yOur subordinate and ,a+