Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-02-13

would have to appeal to the Courts to re-
lnstate him, illustrating my position by
citing the ground / had taken in the case
of the Baltimore Police Commissioners"
Now, at that time, as you admit in your
letter Of the Sd inst, you held the Office
for the very object of defeating an appeal
to the courts. In that letter you say that,
In accepting the Office, one motive was to
prevent the President from appointing
some other person who would retain pos
session, and thus make judicial proceedings
You knew the President was
to trust the Office with any one
who could not, by holding it, compel Mr..
Stanton toresort to the Court; you perfect
ly understood that in the interview some
time after you accepted the office, the Pres
ident, not content with your silence. de-
sired an expression of your. views, and you
answered him that Mr.. Stanton would have
to appeal to the courts. 1t the President
had reposed confidence before he knew
your views, and that confidence had been
violated it might have been said he made
mistake; but q violation of confidence
mistake of his or yours. II
1t is the fact only that needs to be stated
that, at the date of this conversation, you
did not intend to hold the Office with the
purpose of forcing MIR. Stanton into court,
but did hold it,then, and had accepted 1t, to
prevent that course from being carried out.
In other words, you said to the President;
to yourself 81 have accepted this office, ano
now hold it to defeat that course"
The excuse you make in a subsequent
paragraph of that letter, of the 2Sth ulIimo,
that afterward you changed your views as
to what would be a'proper course. has notn-
ing to do with the point now under consid.
Grafton. The point is, that before you nae
changed your views, you had secretly de-
termined to do the very thing which you
at last did. to surrender the office to Mr.
Stanton. You may have changed your
views as to the law, but you certainly did
did not change your views as to the course
you had marked out tor yourself from The
beginning.
I will only notice one more statement in
your letter of the 81 instant, that the max.
ing of the promises, which it is alleged
the resistance of law. / know OF no stat
ute that would have been violated had you
carried out your promises in good faith
and rendered your resignation when you
concluded not TO be made party in any
legal proceedings. You add: II am con-
firmed in this conclusion by your recent
order directing me to disobey orders from
the Secretary of War, my superior and
your subordinate without having counter
manded his authority to issue orders am
On the 24th ult., you addressed note to
the President, requesting, In writing. an
order given to you verbally five days be-
fore. to disregard-orders from Mr.. Stanton,
as Secretary of War, until you knew.
from the President himself, what were his
orders.
On the Doth, in compliance with you re-
quest, did give you instructions In writ
ing not to obey any order from the War
Department, to be issued by the direction
of the President, unless such order is known
By the General commanding the armies OF
the United States, to have been authorized
by the Executive.
There are some orders which Secretary
of War may issue without the authority OF
the President; there are Others which he
issues simply as the agent OF the President,
and which purport to be by direction of the
President. For such orders the President
is responsible, and he should therefore
fore giving such direction. Mr.. Stanton,
in his letter of the 4th inst, which accom-
panies the published correspondence with
the President since the 18th of August last,
further SAYS, that since he resumed the du-
ties of the Office he has continued to dis
charge them without any personal or writ
ten Communication with the President, and
he adds: No orders have been issued
from this Department in the name of the
President with my knowledge, and have
received no orders from him."
1t thus seems that Mr.. Stanton now dis
charges the duties of the War Department
without any reference to the President.
and without using his name. My order to
you had only reference to orders assumed
to be issued by the President. 1t would
appear from Mr.. Stanton's letter that you
have received no such orders from him.
In your note to the President, of the 18th
ult., in which you acknowledge the receipt
of the written order OF the 18th, you say
that you have been informed by Mr.. Stan
ton that he has not received any order
limiting his authority to issue orders to the
army according to the practice of the De-
and state that "whfle this au-
thoritv to the War Department. is not coun-
it will be satisfactory evidence
to me that any orders issued from the War
Department by direction of the President,
are authorized by the Executive"
The President issued an order to you to
obey no order from the War Department,
to be made by direction of the
President until YOU have referred it to him
for his approval You reply that you have
received tho Presidents order and will
not obey it, but will obey an order pur-
porting to be given by his direction, if it
comes from the War Department. You
will obey no direct order of the President,
but will obey his indirect order. If, as
you say, there has been a practice in the
War Department to issue orders in the
name Ot the President without his direc-
tion, does not the precise order you have
requested and have received change the
as to the General OF the Army !?
Could not the President countermand any
such order issued in the name of the Presi-
dent, to do special act and issue an order
directly from the President himself not to
do the act? Is there doubt which you
are to obey? You answer the question
when you say to the President, in your let
ter of the Sd inst, "the Secretary of War
ls my superior and your subordinate; and
yet you refuse obedience to the superior
out of Difference to the subordinate.
Without further comment on the insub-
ordinate attitude which you have assumed,
I am at loss to know how you can relieve
yourself from the orders of the President,
who is made. by the Constitution, the Com
Chief of the Army. and Navy,
and is, therefore, the official superior, as
we'll of the General Of the Army, as of the
Secretary of War.
Respectfully yours,
ANDREW JOHNSON.
Gen. q. s. Grant, Commanding the Armies
of the United States Washington, d. c.
81
Subsequently the President transmitted
to the House the following communica-
tion, which he had just received from Cen
eraI GRANT. tits pitiable reply:
GENERAL GRANT TO THE PRESIDENT.
HEADo .ARTEss Amy OF THE UNITED SrAEs.
WASHINGTON. ID o.. February II. 1888.
His E1cellency Andreto johnson, President OF
n the United States.
SIR: have the honor. to acknowledge
the receipt of your communication of the
l0th inst, accompanied by the statements
of five Cabinet ministers of their recollec-
ton OF what occurred in the Cabinet meet
ing on the 14th January. Without admit
ting anything contained in these state
ments, when they differ from anything
heretofore stated by me, Ipropose to notice
only the portion of your communication
wherein / am charged with insubordina-
ton.
81 / think it will be plain to the reader OF