Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1868-02-18

| superior, as has been heretofore supposed, that
you assumed the duties of the Office. You
knew it was the Presidents purpose to prevent
Mr.. Stanton from resuming the Office of Secre-
| tary Of War, and you intended to defeat that
purpose.
| You accepted the Office, not in the interest of
the President but of Mr. Stanton. IF this
purpose, so entertained by you, had been con-
fined to yourself; If, when accepting this Office,
you had done so with mental reserva-
ton to Illustrate the President, it would have
been tacit deception. In the ethics of some
persons such course is allowable. But you
cannot stand upon that questionable ground
The history OF your connection with your
transaction, as written by yourself, places your
self in different predicament, and shows that
you not only concealed your design from the
President, but induced him to suppose that
you would carry out his purpose to keep Mr..
| Stanton out of Office by retaining it yourself,
after an attempted restoration by the Senate,
so as to 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
ultlmo: Some time after [ assumed the du-
| ties of Secretary of War ad interim, the Presi-
| dent asked me nay views as to the course Mr..
Stanton would have to pursue, in case the SEN
ate should not concur in his suspension, to OBJ
tain possession of his Office. My reply was, in
substance, that Mr.. Stanton would have to ap-
peal to the courts to reinstate him, illustrating
my position by citing the ground I had taken
in the case Of the Baltimore Police Commits
| sioners.
| Now, at that time, as you admit in your let
ter OF the Sd instant, you held the Office for the
very object OF defeating an appeal to the courts.
| In that letter you say that in occupying the Of
hce one motive was to prevent the President
| from appointing some other person who would
retain possession, and thus make judicial pro-
ceedings necessary.
You knew the President was unwilling to
| trust the Office with any one who would not,
by holding it, compel Mr. Stanton to resort to
| the courts You perfectly understood that in
| this interview, '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 reposed confidence before he
knew your views, and that confidence had been
violated, it might have been said he made a
mistake; but violation Of confidence reposed
after that conversation was no mistake of his,
nor OF yours 1t is the fact only, that needs be
stated, that at the date of this conversation you
did not intend to hold the office with the pur-
pose of forcing Mr.. Stanton into court, but did
hold it then and had accepted it to prevent that
course from being carried out. In other words,
you said to the President, that is the proper
course, and you said to yourself, II have ac
cepted the Office, and now hold it, to defeat that
course"
The excuse you make in subsequent para
graph of that letter of the Goth ultimo, that
afterwards you changed your views as to what
would be proper course, has nothing to do
with the point now under consideration The
point is that before you changed your views,
you had secretly determined to do the very
thing which at last you did-surrender the of
| flee to Mr.. Stanton. You may have changed
your views as to the law, but you certainly did
| not change your views as to the course you had
marked out for yourself from the beginning |
VII only notice one more statement in your let
ter Of the 3rd instant-that the performance of
| the promises which, it is alleged, were made
by you, would have involved you in the resis
lance of law. | know Of no statute that would
have been violated had you, carrying out your
! promises IN good faith, rendered your resgna
ton when you concluded not to be made par
ty in any legal proceedings. You add Il am
| in measure confirmed in this conclusion by
| your recent orders directing me to disobcy or
ders from the Secretary of War, my superior
and your subordinate, without having counter
manded his authority to issue the orders I am
to disobey."
|
the President requesting in writing an order
given to you verbally five days before, to disre-
gard orders from Mr.. Stanton as Secretary of
| War until you knew from the President HIM
| self that they were his orders"
On the 29th, In compliance with your request
did give you instructions in writing mot to
obey any orders from the War Department as
sumed to be issued by the direction of the Pres
ident, unless such order is known by the Gen
eral commanding the armies of the United
States to have been authorized by the Execu-
tive
! There are some orders which a 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
purports to be ''by direction of the President
For such orders the President is responsible
and he should therefore, know and understand
what they are before giving such CORRECTIONS. )"
Mr.. Stanton states, in his letter of the 4th in
slant, which accompanies the published cores
pondence, that he has had no correspondence
with the President since the 18th August last; :"
and he further says that since he resumed the
duties of the Office he has continued to dis
charge them without any personal or written
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 direction of the Pres
ident" 1t would appear from Mr.. Stanton S
letter that you have received no such orders
from him. However, in your note to the Pres
ident of the both ultimo, in which you ac.
knowledge the receipt Of the written order of
the 29th, you say that you have been informed
by Mr. Stanton that he has not received any
order limiting his authority to issue orders to
the army according to the practice of the De-
partment, and state that while this authority
to the War Department is not oountermanded
it will be satisfactory evidence to me that any
orders issued from the War Department by d.
rection of the President are authorized by the
Executive"
The President issues an order to you to obey
no order from the War Department, purport-
ing to be made by the direction of the Presi-
dent until you have referred it to him for his
approval. You reply that you have received
the Presidents order, and will not obey it, but
will obey an order purporting to be given by
his direction If 1t comes from the Var Depart
ment. You will not obey the direct order of
the President, but will obey his indirect order.
If as you say, there has been practice in the
War Department to issue orders in the name
of the President without his direction, does not
| the precise order you have requested and have
received change the practice as to the General