The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-02-13
Letters from Welles, Mcoulloch,
Randall, Browning, Seward.
eRNRRAL aRANT,s REP1Y.
He Denies Insubordination,
WASHINGTON, Feb. IL 1913,

WASHINGTON, Feb. IL, 1868.
The President this afternoon sent m,
following letters to the House of Rep
resentatives, in accordance with the
resolution adopted yesterday:
Executive MANSION, Feb. 10, '6s.
Gemeral:-The extraordinary oharac.
! ter of your letter of the Sd inst. would
seem to preclude any reply on my part
but the manner in which publicitv ha,
been given to the correspondence ol
which that letter forms a part, and the
grave questions which are involved
induce me to take this msde OF giving
US proper sequel to the communities
tions which have passed between us
the statements of the five members OF
the Cabinet, who were present on the
occasion of our conversation on the
14th ult. Copies of the letters which
they have addressed to me upon the
subject are accordingly herewith en-.
closed.
You speak of my letter of the lst nil.
as retterative of the many and gross
Misrepresentation contained in certain
newspaper articles, and reassert the
correctness of the statements contained
IN your communication of the 2Sth ult,
adding, and here give your own
words, anything in yours In reply to
1t to the contrary, notwithstanding"
fact reaches the point to which this has
been brought, further assertion or de,
NAL between the immediate parties
should cease, especially when upon
| either side it loses the character of the
respectful discussion which is required
by the relations in which the parties
stand to each other, and deCenerates
in tone and temper. In such a case. h
there is nothing to rely upon but the
| opposing statements, conclusions musl
be drawn from those statements alone
and from whatever intrinsic probabil.
tty they afford in favor of or against
either of the parties. should not
shrink from the controversy, but for.
tunately 1t Is not left to this test alone
There were five CbRinet officers present
at the conversation, the details of which
were given In my letter of the 18th ult,
| which you allow yourself to say, con.
tains many and gross misrepresenta-
tions. These gentlemen heard that
conversation, ana have read my state
ment. They speak for themselves, and
leave the proof without word oi
comment.
I deem 1t proper before concluding
this communication, to notice some oi
the statements contained in your letter
You say that a performance of the
promises alleged to have been made by
| you to the President, would have in.
volved "a resistance to law and an in.
| consistency with the whole history OF
my connection with the suspension OF
Mr.. Stanton" You then stnte that
you had fears the President would, on
the removal of Mr.. Stanton, appoint
some one in his place who would EN-.
barrass the army in carrying out the
| reconstruction acts, and add: SIT was
to prevent such an appointment that i
accepted the office of Secretary of War
Gd interim, and not for the purpose OF
enabling you to get rid OF Mr.. Stanton
by my withholding it from him in op-
position to the law, or, not doing SO
myself, surrendering it to one who
would, as the statements and assump-
tions in your communication plainly
indicate, IL was sought"
First of all you here admit that from
the very beginning of what you term
your whole history of your connection
with Mr.. Stanton's suspension, you in
tended to clrcumvent the President. 1t
was to carry out that intent that YOU
your mind at the time of your accep-
lance. It was not then In obedience 10
the order OF your superior, as has here
totore been supposed, that you assum-
ed the duties OF the Office. You knew
It was the Presidents purpose to pre-
vent Mr.. Stanton from resuming the
Office of Secretary of War, and you in
tended to defeat that purpose. You ac-
cepted the office, not in the interest OF
the President. but of Mr.. Stanton. II
this purpose, so entertained by you,
had been confined to yourself; II, when
accepting the Office, you had done 30
with a mental reservation to Illustrate
the President, 1t would have been a de-
ception. In the ethics of some persons
such course is allowable; but you can
not stand even upon that questionable
ground. The history of your connec.
ton with this transaction, as written by
Yourself, places you In different pre-
dicament, and shows that you not only
concealed your design from the Presf-
dent, but induced him to suppose that
you would carry out his purpose to
keep Mr.. Stanton out of Office by re-
tanning it yourself after an attempted
restoration by the Senate. SO as to re-
quire Mr.. Stanton to establish his right
by judicial decision.
1 now give that part ofthis history as
written by yourself in your letter of the
2Sth ult.:
"Some time after assumed the duties of
Secretary of War dd TTIteTtm, the President
asked my views as To the course Mr.. Stanton
would have to pursue in case the Senate
should not concu r in his suspension 10 oh
tain possession OF the office. My reply WaY,
in substance. that Mr.. Stanton would have
illustrating my position by citing the
RroundI had taken in the cAse OF the BalLi-
more HOlCe LOQll0IHdlO0eTS.
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 possession, and thus
make judicial proceeding necessa ry.
You knew the President was unwilling
to trust the office with any one who
could not, by holding 1t. compel Mr..
Stanton to resort to the Courts. You
perfectly understood that in this inter-
view, some time after you accepted the
| office, the President, not content with
your silence, desired an expression OF
your views, and you answered him
that Mr.. Stanton would have to appeal
to the Courts. If the President had re-
posed confidence before he knew your
views, and that confidence had been
violated, it might have been said that
he made a mistake; but a violation OF
confidence reposed after that conversa-
ton was no mistake of his or yours. 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 Mr.. Stan
ton into Court, but did hold 1t then and
had accepted 1t, to prevent the course
from being carried out. In other words,
you said TO the President, that Is the
proper course, and you said to your
! self, az have accepted this Office and
now hold it to defeat that course"
The excuse you make in Il subse-
ouent paragraph of that letter of the
18th ult., that afterwards you changed
your views as to what would be a
proper course, has nothing to do with
the point now under consideration.
mt. 10 Nh0t hoEOPa MN