The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-02-12
VOL. XXXIV.

i FOL. AxXIV.
tion you did not intend to hold the Office
with the purpose Of forcing Mr.. Stanton
into court, but did hold It then, and had
accepted it, to prevent that course from
being carried ont. In other words, you
said to the President, "That is the pro-
per course -; and you said to yourself,
81 have accepted this Office, and now hold
1t to defeat that course" The excuse you
make in subsequent paragraph Of the
letter of the 2Sth 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-sur-
render the Office to Mr.. Stanton. You
may have changed your views as to the
law, but you certainly did not change
your views rs to the course you had mark
ed out for yourself from the beginning.
will only notice one more statement in
your letter Of the Sd instant-that the
performance Of the promise which it is
alleged was made by you would have in
volved you in the resistance Of law. l
know of no statute that would have been
violated had you, carrying out your pro-
misses in good faith, rendered your resig-
nation when you concluded not to be made
a party in any legal proceedings.
You add 81 am in measure confirmed
in this conclusion by your recent orders
directing me to disobey orders from the
Secretary Of War, my superior and your
subordinate, without having counter
manded his authority to issue the orders I
am to disobey." .....-... ..
On the Oath ultimo you addressed a note
to the President requesting in writing an
order given to you verbally five days before
to disregard orders from Mr.. Stanton as
Secretary of War until you "knew from
the President himself that they were his
orders."
On the 2oth, in compliance with your
request, l did give you instructions in
writing "not to obey any order from the
War Department assumed to be issued by
the direction of the President unless such
order is known by the General command
ing 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 Presi-
dent, and Which purport to be "by direc-
ton" of the President. For such orders
the President is responsible, and he should
therefore know and understand what they
are before giving such "directions." Mr..
Stanton states in his letter Of the 4th in
slant, which accompanies the published
correspondence, that he "has had no cor
respondence with the President since the
18th of August last" and he further says
| that since he resumed the duties of the
| office he has continued to discharge them
without any personal or written commu-
nication with the President" And he adds {:
NO orders have been issued from this De-
partment in the name of the President
with my knowledge, and have received no
orders from him." It thus seems
that Mr.. Stanton now discharges the
duties of the War Department with
out 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 "direction Of
the President" 1t would appear from
Mr.. Stanton's letter that you have received
no such orders from him. However, in
your note to "the President, Of the goth"
ultimo, in which you acknowledge the
receipt of the written order of the goth,
you say that you have been informed by
Mr.. Stanton that he has not received any
order limiting his authority toissue orders
to the army according to the practice Of
the Department, and state that "while
this authority to the War Department is not
countermanded it will be satisfactory evil
dence to me that any orders issued from
the War Department by direction of the
President are authorized by the EXecu-
tive" The President issues an order to
YOU to obey no order from the War De-
partment purporting to be made "by the
direction Of the President until you
have referred to him for his approval. You
reply that you have received the Presl-
dents order, and will not obey it, but will
obey an order purporting to be given by
his direction if it comes from the War De-
partment. 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 pre-
else order you have requested, and have
received, change the practice as to the
General of the Army? Could not the Pre-
sident countermand any such order issued
to you from the War Department Ifyou
should receive an order from that Depart
ment, issued in the name of the President,
to do a special act, and an order directly
from the President himself not to do the
act, is there a doubt which you are to
obey? You answer the question when
you say to the President in your letter Of
the Sd instant the Secretary of War is
"my superior and your subordinate" and
vet you refuse obedience to the superior out
of deterenceto to the subordinate. Without
further comment on the inSubordinate at
titude which you have assumed, | am at
a loss to know how you can relieve your
self from obedience to the orders of the
President, who is made by the Constitu-
ton the Commander-in- Chief of the Army
and Navy, and is therefore the official su'
perior as we'll of the General of the Army
as of the Secretary of War.
Respectfully yours,
ANDREW JOHNSON.
General q. S. Grant, commanding Armies
of the United States, Washington, ID. e.
COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED TO EACH OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE CABINET PRESENT
AT THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL GRANT ON THE
18th JANUARY, 1868.