Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1868-02-18

,
HUGH McCULLocH.
To the President.
PosToFFIcE DEPARTMENT,
Washington, Feb. 6, 1868.
Sir: am in receipt of your letter of the
5th of February, calling my attention to the
correspondence published in the Chronicle
between the President and General Grant,
and especially to that part of it which refers
to the conversation between the President
and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting
on Tuesday, the I4th of January, with re-
quest that 1 state what was said in that con-
yersation.
In reply, have the honor to state that
have read carefully the correspondence in
question, and particularly the letter of the
President to General Grant, dated January
81, 1868.
| The following extract from your letter of
the 31st of January to General Grant is, ac-
cording to my recollection, correct state
| ment of the conversation that took place be-
tween the President and General Grant in
the Cabinet meeting on the 14th of January
last. In the presence of the Cabinet the
President asked General Grant whether sin
conversation which took place after his ap
pointment as Secretary of War al interim he
| did not agree either to remain at the head of
the War Department and abide any judicial
proceedings that might follow the non con-
currence by the Senate in Mr.. Stanton's sus>
pension, and should he wish not to become
involved in such controversy, to put the
| President in the same position with respect
to the Office as he occupied previous to Cen
eral Grants appointment, by returning it to
the President in time to anticipate such ac-
tion by the Senate"
This General Grant admitted. The Prcsi-
dent then asked General Grant if at the con-
ference on the preceding Saturday he had
not, to avoid misunderstanding, requested
General Grant to state what he intended to
| do and further if in reply to that inquiry
he General Grant) had not referred to their
former conversation, saying that from them
the President understood his position, and
that his General Grant's) action would be
consistent with the understanding which had
been reached. To these General Grant replied
in the affirmative The President asked Cen
eral Grant if at the conclusion of their inter-
view on Saturday it was not understood that
they were to have another conference on Mon
day, before final action by the Senate in the
case of Mr. Stanton. General Grant replied
that such was the understanding, but that he
did not suppose the Senate would act so soon;
that on Monday he had been engaged in
conference with General Sherman, and was
occupied with "many little Matters and ask
ed "if General Sherman had not called on
that day."
I take this mode of complying with the
request contained in the Presidents letter to
me, because my attention has been called to
the subject before, when the correspondence
between the President and General Grant
was under consideration.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ALEXANDER w. RANDALL,
Postmaster General.
In addition to the foregoing, there are two
other letters one from Mr.. Seward, Secretary
of State, and one from Mr.. Browning, the
Secretary of Interior These letters we omit
because of their length. The letter of the
Secretary of the Interior sustains the Presi-
dents statement with regard to what occur
red at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th ult.,
whilst Mr.. Seward is rather ambiguous in his
manner of expression, and decidedly Sew
ardish from beginning to end. The cores
pondence winds up with the following letter
from Grant,
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE U. s.,
Washington, D. c., Feb. II, 1868.
His Ercelteney 4. johnson, President Of the
United tStdtes.-Sir: have the honor to ac-
knowledge the receipt of your communion
ton of the 10th inst, accompanied By the
statements of five cabinet ministers of their
recollection of what occurred in cabinet meet
ing on the 14th of January.
Without admitting anything in these
where they differ from anything heretofore
stated by me propose to notice only that por-
ton of your communication wherein | am
charged with insubordination. l think it will
be plain to the reader of my letter of the 3Oth
of January that l did not propose to disobey
auy legal order of the President distinctly
given, but only gave an Interpretation of what
would be regarded as satisfactory evidence
of the Presidents sanction to orders commu-
nicated by the Secretary Of War. / will say
here that your letter of the 10th instant con,
tains the first intmation have had that you
did not accept that Interpretation.
Now for reasons for giving that interpreta-
ton: 1t was clear to me, before my letter of
January 30th was written, that |, the person
having more public business to transact with
the Secretary of War than any other of the
Presidents subordinates, was the only one
who had been instructed to disregard the au-
thority of Mr.. Stanton where his authority
was denied as agent of the President.
On the 9th of January received letter
from the Secretary of War, (copy herewith, }
directing me to furnish escort to public trea-
sure from the Rio Grande to New Orleans,
etc, at the request of the Secretary of the
Treasury to him. 1 also send two other en-
closures showing recognition of Mr.. Stanton
as Secretary of War, by both the Secretary
of the Treasury and Postmaster General, in
all of which cases the Secretary of War had
to call upon me to make the orders requested
-E.--..I:.. I-.:.-L