Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-02-16

your views IN regard TO your understand
ing of the tenure upon which Gen
Grant had assented to hold the Wal
Department ad interim, and Of his replies
by way OF answer and explanation. II
1 was respectful and courteous on boti
sides In this conversation. As details
i could only have been presented by yer.
bal report, so far as / know no such re.
port was made at the time, can give
only the general effect of the converse
ton. Certainly you stated that, although
YOU had reported the reasons for Mr..
Slanton's suspension TO the Senate, you,
nevertheless, held he would not be enti-
tied to resume the Office of S Secretary oi
War, even if the Senate shonid disap.
prove of the suspension, and that you
had proposed to have the question tested
by Judicial process, to be applied to the
person who should be the incum bent OF
the Department under your designation
| Of Secretary of War ad interim in the
place of Mr.. Stanton. You contended
that 1t was well understood between
yourself and Gen. Grant that when he
| entered the Department his concurrence
in belief that the question of Mr. Stan
| toms restoration would be question for
the cOufts. That, in q subsequent con-
/ veTsatiOn with the General, you had adj
veFted to the understanding thus had,
and that Gen. Grant expressed
his concurrence in it. At some
| conversation which had been pre-
yiously held, Gen. Grant said he
still adhered to the same construction of
the law, but said if he should change his
| opinion he would give reasonable notice
| Of it SO you could in any case be placed
! in the same position in regard to the
4 - -I.a1
| Gen. Grant held It. / did not under
stand him as denying nor IS explicitly
admitting these statements in the form
and full extent to which you made them.
His admission of them was rather indi
rect and circumstantisl, though 1 did not
understand il to be an evasive one. He
said that reasoning from what occurred
in the case of the police in Maryland
which he regarded as parallel one, he
WAS Of the opinion, and so assured you,
that it wss his right and duty, under
your instructions, to hold the War Office
until the Senate should disapprOve OF
Mr.. Stantob's suspension, and the ques-
ton should be decided by the courts I;
that he remained until very recently OF
that opinion, and on the Saturday before
the Cabinet meeting conversation was
held between yourself and him, IN which
the subject was generally discuss I'D.
Gen. Grants statement in that CONVEX
sstion that he had stated to you the diff
cnties which might arise, involving fine
and impri5Onment, under the civil tenure
bill, and that he did net care to subject
himself to these penalties. That you re-
piled to this remark that you regarded
the civil tenure bill as Unconstitutional,
and did not think its penalties were to be
feared, or that you would voluntarily as
sumo them, and you insisted that Gen.
Grant should rather retain the office
until relieved by yourself according to
what you claimed was the original under
standing between yourself and him, or
by seasopable notice of change of pur-
pose on his part, put you in the same
situation in which you would be if he
adhered. You claimed that Gen. Grant
finally said in that Saturdays eonversaz
ton, that you understood his views and
his proceedings thereafter, would be con-
sistent with what had cen so understood.
Ger. Grant did not G0ntrOveFt, nor can
l say that he admitted this last state
ment. Certsinly Ger. Grant did not at
any time in the Cabinet meeting Insist
that he had, in the Saturday cOnversa-
tiOp, either directly or finally advised
you of mis- determination to retire from
otherW ise than that. under your subss-
quent direction, he acquiesced in your
s;Btement that the Saturday CONVERSE
ton ended with an expectation that there
would be q subse quent conference on the
subject, which he, as well 8s yourself,
understood could reasonably take place
on Monday.
You then alluded to the fact that Gen
Grant did not call upon you, rs you ex-
pected, from that conversation. Gen.
Grant admitted that il was his expecta-
ton or purpose to call upon you Monday.
Gen, Grant assigned reasons for the Omisa
sion. He said that he was 10 conference
with Gen Sherman; that as there were
many little matters to be attended to, he
had conyersed upon the matter Of sur
rendering the War Department with
Gen. Sherman he expected Gen. Sher-
man would call on Monday. My own
mind suggested a further explanation, but
do not remember whether it was mem
toned or not, namely: 1t was not sup
posed by Gen. Grant on Monday that
the Senate would decide the question 50
promptly, as TO anticipate a f1rther e9-
planatiOn between yourself aud him If
delayed beyond that day. Gen. Grant
made another explanation, that he was
engaged on Sunday with Gen. Sherman,
and ] think also on Monday, in regard to
the War Department, with a hope,
though he did not say in an effort, to
procure an amiesble settlement OF the
affair OF Mr.. Stanton, aud still hoped it
would be bTOu ght about.