Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-01-09

| the tenure of Office bill II il admitted
that Mr.. Stanton thought the bin uncon-
stitutional and was opposed to it becoming
law. Such, the committee say, was SIN
| cerely his view, and some of the ablest
| statesmen in the country have entertained
| the same opinion, but others, equally able,
have held contrary opinion, and among
/ them MIR. Webster. The controversy is al
most as old as the government. but the como
mittee contend that it does not follow be-
cause a public officer has entertained such
opinion Of proposed measure he is TO
carry his notions so far as to treat it as
void when formally enacted into law by
two.thirds vote Of each House.
The next point of the Presidents mes.
sage noticed by the committee is his charge
that Mr.. Stanton was, at one time, in ac-
cord with his Mr.. Johnson's) policy, and
endeaVors to make him partly responsible
for ii. This is denied on the strength Of
Mr.. Stanton's testimony on the subject,
given before the Impeachment Committee
of the House. In regard 10 Mr.. john
sons claim that he is responsible for the
conduct of the Executive Department, the
report asks whether he admits his respon-
sibilily for the ditpatches sent by the Sec
retary of State to the Provisional Govern
ors, and maintains that he must admit that
and be bound by them !; and yet, in his
message to Congress in 1856, he suppressed
such intimations, and astonishes the coun-
try by announcing that he had fully reor-
ganized and reconstructed the rebellious
States, and that nothing remained for Con-
gress to do but pass upon the naked ques-
tion Of the regularity of the elections and
qualifications of Senators and Representa-
tives elected.
Another especial ground of complaint
alleged against Mr.. Stanton in the Presi-
dents message, is that he omitted to conn
municate to the, President the telegraphic
dispatches Of Gen. Baird, dated July 28,
1866, relative to the State Convention of
Louisiana, then about to meet in New Or
leans, and Mr.. Stanton did not send the
General instructions as required. After
quoting Mr.. Johnson's messageon this sub
ject very fully, the report declares that
these passages from the message show
plainly enough that the purpose of its au-
thor was to prove that he had no epportu-
nifty to prevent the riot and slaughter of
that bloody day, and is therefore free from
the responsibility of which he speaks, and
hisiiailure to prevent them is clearly charge
able to Mr.. Stanton's delinquency in not
sending Gen. Baird instructions. and in
Withholding the dispatch from the Presi-
dent.
The committee give much space to the
discussion of this poiutf and accuse the
President of being aware of the existence
of Mayor Monroe's letter to General Baird,
of bnO of Ir,lrz o1c 2 al Izl. IL
to disperse the convention. Knowing these
facts, they ask why the President did not
make arrangements for preventing the riot,
az the convention owed its existence pri-
marily to the President. As Commander
in-Chief of the armies, he could have dis
solved the convention, and failing in that,
they argue he was bound to protect it
against violence. Even had he ceased to
regard it as a lawful assembly he should
have protected its members as private
citizens.
The committee quote dispatches which
passed between Mr.. johnson and the au-
thorities of Louisiana at the time of the
riot, and are of opinion that the Presidents
dispatch to Voorhies of July %, 1866, was
a plain order to use troops against men,
bers of the convention. In support of this
view the committee refer to the feelings
entertained by the president towards the
convention, and quote his speech at st.
Louis, delivered September 9Th, 1866,
wherein he denounced the members.
IN noticing the grave delinquency with
which the President charges Mr.. Stanton
for his failure to show him Gen. Baird's
dispatch asking for instruction, which i'm
mediately after was received, the commit
tee say Mr.. johnson, in his report seeks TO
throw off from himself ali responsibility
Of the riot, and denies he was warned in
time. This denial, in the face of the. un-
contested and uncontrovertible facts of the
case, admits of but one reply, and that is
that it is untrue, and known to be so by
Mr.. Johnson. He was warned and fully
warned, of impending violence, and it is in
vain for him to deny the fact SO we'll es-
tablished. Mr.. Stanton was not warned.
The committee discussed this subject at
great length, and in conclusion recommend
the adoption of the following resolution
Resolved, That having considered the
evidence and reasons given by the Presi-
dent in his report of the 18th of Decem-
ber, 1867 for suspension from the office of
Secretary of War, +. NJ. Stanton, The Sem
ate 30 not concur in such suspension"