Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-02-26

tary Of War al interim without subsectng himseli
10 6ne and imprisonment; and that no came over
Saturday 10 inform the President Of This change in
bis views, and did SO inform him that the Presi-
dent replied that be had not suspended Mr. Stanton
nnder the tenure Of Office BILL but under the Con
stitution, and had appointed him (Grsnt BY virtue
Of the authority derived from the Constitution, &C.
that they continued 20 Giecuss tic MISTER some time
and finally he left without any conclusion having
been reached expecting TO see the President again
on Monday. He then proceeded 20 explain why be
hsd not called on the President on Monday, saying
that be had had a long interview with Gen. Sher-
mGn that various little matters had occupied bis
time 3ill It was late, and that be did not think the
Senate would act so soon, and asked Did not Gen.
SisrIsn call on you OF Monday2
y Rill be observed that Gen. Grant is said 10
have admitted that the conversation occurred, p
that IT, the conversation with the President on Sat
urday, January IL. But Whist follows the words
quoted shows that he did not admit the correctness
Of the Presidents version Of that Conversation
Neither do we find here any admission of the prom
ise alleged by the President to have been made by
Gen. Grant in their first conversation viz that lie
would hold on to the Office until the question should
be decided by the courts return It to Mr.. John
son m time 70 anticipate the action Of the Senate
BE is merely alleged TO have admitted that BIO sta
ted his views Of the law at the time, and that he
promised 70 inform the President 10 case he should
]
/ Mr.. Browning be claimed to have fulfilled on the
Saturday preceding tho action of the Senate.
The ad mission Of promise to call on the Presi-
| dent on Monday dwindles down, in the light of Mr.
Brownng's testimony, into the statement that he
parted from the President on Saturday evening
! expecting TO see" him again on Monday. The
violation Of this alleged agreement has been one of
the strongest points in the Indictment against Gen
Grant, and attempts have been msde professedly
with the Presidents sanction, TO make him appear
ID
want excuses, the result Of confusion and embar-
rsssment, as that 10 bad been engaged with Gen
Sherman, and many other little matters the last
expression being always quoted TO call special at
tenton TO its irrelevancy Mr.. Br)wning's testi-
mony shows these reasOns IN their true light Gen.
Grant had merely expected 10 see the President on
Monday. BE gives such an explanation of bic fail
ure TO do go man might give for a failure to do
anything else the doing of which was optional with
himself, and TO which be attached no especial i'm
portsncepreeisely the sortof explanation be might
give consistently with hs own assertion that he had
made no promise.
A comparison of Mr. Brownings statement with
Gen. Grants in his letter Of the 2sth ult will show
that there no discrepancies between them, ex-
cept such verbal ones as might be expected to APP
pear In two statements not reduced 20 writing but
made from memory. Not only does the testimony
Of Mr.. Browning fail to prove the alleged admis-
sions, but It attributes to General Grant language
which was entirely incompatible with such admis-
sions.
Secretary Seward, while be exhibits an incliDa-
ton not to deny the Presidents statements any fur
Their than ho avoid, renders but little service TO
bis cause he gives his recollection of what the
President said 10 Gen. Grant, Including the state
nent that il be Grant should change his opinion
he would give Mr.. johnson sessonable notice of il
so that be should in any case be plsced in the same
position in regard TO the War Department that he
was while Gen. Grant held il cd iBtirius. NJ Sew
ard then says:
q" I did not understand Cen Grant as denying,
nor as EXPLICITLY admitting these statements in the
form and full extent 20 which you Rde them. His
admission Of them rather indirect than cireum-
stantial, though I did not understand it TO be an
evasive one"
He then proceeds to show the extent Of the ad-
mission by the following statement of what Gen.
Grant said
He said that reasoning from what occurred in
the case Of the police of Maryland, which he re-
garded s parallel one, he was Of opinion, and so
assured you, that il would be his right and duty
under your Instructions 70 hold the Office after the
Senate should disspProve Of Mr.. Stantons saspen-
sion until the question should DO decided upon by
the court that he remained until very recently of
that opinion, and that on Saturday. before the Cab
met meeting q conversation was held between
yourself and him, in which the subject was gener-
ally discussed Gen. Granite statement was thst IN
that conversation he rad stated 10 you che legal
difficulties which might arise, involving line and
m under
be did not care to subject himself TO those penal
ties that you replied 10 the remark that you re-
garded the civil tenure bill unconstitutional and
did not think its penalties TO be feared, that
you would voluntarily assume them, and you in
sisted that Gen. Grant should either retain the Of
fee until relieved by yourself according to what
yen claimed the original understanding between
yourself and him, or by reasonable notice OF change
of purpose on his part put you IN the Same situation
which you would be if he adhered. You claimed
that Gen. Grant finally said in that Saturdays con-
versation that you understood his views, and his
proceedings thereafter would be consistent with
what had been so understood.
General Grant did not oontroveTt nor can 1 say
that be admitted this last statement
No; there is not one admission proved, even by
these partial witnesses. Their statements impsr-
feet as they doubtless are sufficient vindica-
ton Of Gen. Grants vsraCity. In no point do they
Ga ialseho0d or dishonor upon him. But how is it
with the President? He boldly asserts tha. Gen.
Grant did admit the things alleged. His witnesses
endeavor TO avoid cOntrOverting bis assertions, but
with all their caution do not succeed and th cir
failure 20 sustain him. in view Of the strong motives
they have FOR doing SO, leaves him in worse pre-
dcament if such thing be possible than he would
have been in If he had relied upon his own unsup-
ported reputation for veracity. Mr.. johnson has
called upon his witnesses, and they have spoken
After balancing and comparing their testimony we
find that be stands before the country now az he
did before he called On them, with nothing to sus-
tain him but his own naked word. 1t is now, Sc il
was At first, purely question Of veraoity between
him and Gen. Grant but he lRbors under this dis
advantage-thst whereas at first he only bad
against him the odds If Granite unsuied reputation
/ be ia now exposed 20 additional suspicion by his
failure to bring forward the proofs which be prom
sed II il felt that if his subservient Cabinet find
IL impossible 20 bear him out in bis statements re-
speotng what traBspreG in their presence, his word
in regard TO things which transpired unobserved by
| witnesses must be utterly untruBtwoTthy There
are many proofs Of his recklessness of statement
scattered through this correspondence, and these,
together with the proofs it affords Of his animus to-
ward Gen. Grant shall defer for another article.