The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-02-12
EXECUTlTE MANSION, {

send You, without comment, the fol-
lowing important letter:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
February 10, 1865.
General, The extraordinary charac-
ter of your letter Of the Sd instant would
seem to preclude any reply on my part !;
but the manner in which publicity has
been given to the correspondence Of which
that letter forms part, and the grave ques-
lions which are involved, induce me to
take this mode of giving, as proper
sequel 10 the communications which have
passed between US, the statements of the
i've members Of the Cabinet who were
present on the occasion Of our converse
tion on the 18th ultimo. Copies of the let
tevS which they have addressed to me
upon the subject are, accordingly, herewith
enclosed.
You speak of my letter of the 31st
Ultimo as reIteration of the "many and
gross misrepresentation contained in
certain newspaper articles, and reissert
the correctness of the statement contained
in your communication Of the 2Sth ultimo,
adding land here give your own words)
Anything in yours in reply to it to the
contrary notwithstanding" When a con-
troversy upon matters of fact reaches the
point TO which this has been brought, fur
ther assertion or denial between the imme-
date parties should cease, especially when,
upon either side, it loses the character
OF the respectful discussion which is re-
CURED by the relations in which the par
ties stand 10 each other, and degenerates
in tone and temper. In such case, if
shcre is nothing to rely upon but the op-
posing statements, conclusions must be
drawn from the statements alone, and
from whatever intrinsic probabilities they
afford in favor of or against either of the
parties. | should not shrink from this
test in this controversy; but fortunately it
is not left to this test alone. There were
five Cabinet officers present at the con-
vcrsation, the details Of which in my let
ter OF the 2Sth ultimo you allow yourself
- say contains "many and gross misrepre-
sensations" These gentlemen heard that
conversation, and have read my statement.
They speak for themselves, and l leave
the proof without word of comment.
deem il proper, before concluding this
communication, TO notice some OF the
statements contained in your letter.
You say that performance Of the pro-
mise alleged to have been made by you to
the President would have involved ere
Si>tancc 10 law and an Inconsistency with
the whole history Of my connection with
tue suspension of Mr.. Stanton" You then
state that you had fears the President
would, oa the removal OF Mr.. Stanton, ap-
point some one in bis place who would en-
barrasS the army in carrying out the re-
construction acts, and add: at was to
prevent such an appointment that l ac-
ccptcd the office OF Secretary of War ad
interim, and not for the purpose Of enabling
you TO get rid Of Mr.. Stanton by my with
holding it from him in opposition 70 law,
or, not doing SO myself, surrenderiDg 1t to
one who would, as the statements and as
SumptionS in your communication plea
sanity indicate was sought"
First Of all, you here admit that from
the very beginning of what you term the
whole history" Of your connection with
Mr.. Stan,on's suspension you intended to
circUmvent the President it was to carry
out that intent that you accepted the ap-
pointment; this was in your mind at the
time of your acceptance. 1t was not, then,
in obedience to the order Of your superior,
as has heretofore been supposed, that you
asumed the duties of the office. You knew
il was the Presidents purpose to prevent
Mr.. Stanton from resuming the Office Of
Secretary Of War;, and you intended to
defeat that purpose. You accepted the
Office not in the interest of the President,
bat Of Mr.. Stanton. IF this purpose, SO
entertained by you, had been confined to
yonrself-if, when accepting the office,
You had done SO with mental
reservation to Illustrate the Presi-
dent,-it would have been tacit decep-
ton. In the ethics Of some persons, such
course is allowable; but you cannot
stand even on that questionable ground.
The history" of your connection with
this transaction as written by yourself
places you in different predicament, and
shows that you not only concealed your
design from the President, but induced
Inn to suppose that you would carry out
Lis purpose to keep Mr.. Stanton out of
oliicc by retaining it yourself, after an at
tempt at restoration by the Senate, so asto
require Mr.. Stanton to establish his right
by judicial decision. | now give that part
Of this history" as written by yourself
IN your letter of the 2Sth ultimo:
Some time after assumed the duties
I" Secretary Of War ad interim the Pre-
Mdcut asked me my views as to the course
Mf. Stanton would have to pursue, in case
'hc Senate should not concur in his sus.
pension, to obtain possession of his office.
my reply was, in substance, that Mr.. Stan
ION would have to appeal to the courts to
'eInstate him; illustrating my position by
cinng the ground had taken in the case
ol The Baltimore Police Commissioners"
NOW, at that time, as you admit in your
'el'er Of the I'd instant, you held the office
WIN the very object of defeating an ap-
peal to the courts. In that letter you say
mat in accepting the office one motive
was 10 prevent the President from appoint
lng some other person who would retain
possession, and thus make judicial pro-
weddings necessary. You knew the Presl-
uelt was unwilling to trust the office with
'"y one who would not, by holding it,
SVo'npel Mr.. Stanton to resort to the courts.
lou perfectly understood that 10 this
interview. "Some time " after you accept
~ ,n;t me oiiice, the President, not content
WIN your silence, desired an expression Of
Hut views, and you answered him that
courts"
hsta a. 'he President had reposed confidence
fdsss fds he knew your views, and that con-
beer Iad been violated, it might have
lsi@, 'ad ne made mistake; but yio-
copvs. ol confidence reposed after that
Of vass'ion von.ion was no mistake of his nor
4 tateS tS's; J, 1t is the feet only that needs be
B "' 'aat OF tho date Of this converse.