The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-02-07


that considered your proposal as q
sort of reparation for the failure, on
your part, to act in accordance with an
understanding more than once repeat
ed, which I thought had received your
full assent, and under which you could
have returned to me the Office which /
had conferI ed upon you, thus saving
yourself from embarrassment and leav-
ing the responsibility where 1t properly
belonged, with the President, who is
accountable for the faithful execution
of the laws.
have not yet been informed by you
whether, as twice proposed by yourself,
you had called upon Mr.. Stanton and
made an effort to induce him volun-
tarlly to resign from the War Depart
ment. You conclude your commune
cation with reference to our CONVEX
sation at the meeting of the Cabinet
held on Tuesday, the 18th instant. In
your account of what then occurred,
you say that after the President had
given his version OF your pre-
V1ous conversations, you stated them
substantially as given in your letter;
mat you In no wise admitted the COR
rectness of his statement of them,
Enough. to soften the evident contra
d1ctlon my statement gave, I said, (al-
luding to our first communication on
the subject the President might have
understood in the way he said, viz:
that had promised to resign If did
not resist the reinstatement. 1 made
no snch promise" Ny recollection Of
what then transpfred Is Numerically
the reverse of your narration. In the
presence of the Cabinet asked you:
First. II, in conversation which
took place shortly after your appoint
ment as Secretary of War, Gd interim,
you did not agree either to remain at
| the head of the War Department., and
abide any judicial proceedings that
might follow non.concurrence by the
Senate in Mr.. Stanton's suspension !?
Or, should you not wish to become in
Volved in such controversy, to put
me In the same position with respect to
the office as occupied previous to your
appointment. by returning it to me in
time to anticipate such action by the
Senate?
This you admitted.
Second. I then asked you If, at the
conference on the preceding Saturday,
had not, to avoid misunderstanding,
requested you to state what you intend
ed to do; and further, If, in reply to
that inquiry, you had not referred to
our former conversations, saying that
from them understood your position,
and that your action would be consis-
tent with the understanding which had
been reached.
To these questions you also replied
| In the affirmative.
Third. 1 then asked If at the conclu-
sion OF our interview on Saturday it
was not understood that we were to
have another conference on Monday
the case of Mr.. Stanton.
You replied that such was the under
standing, but that you did not suppose
that the Senate would act SO soon, that
On Monday you had been engaged in a
conference with General Sherman, and
~ nor tod -
ters," and asked If General Sherman
had not called on that day3 What rel
| evancy General Sherman's visit to me
on Monday had with the purpose for
which you were to have called, I am at
loss to perceive, as he certainly did
not inform me whether you had deter
| mlne0 10 retain possession OF the office
or to afford me an opportunity to ap-
| point successor in advance of any
attempted reinstatement of Mr.. Stanton.
This account of what passed at the
cabinet meeting on the 14th instant,
widely differs from that contained in
your communication, for 1t shows that
instead of having "stated our CONVEX
sations as given in the letter." which
has made reply necessary, you admit
ted that my recital Of them was entirely
accurate. Sincerely anxious, however,
TO be correct iu my statements, I have
| to-day read this narration of what oc-
Cured on the 14th instant to the mem
bers of the cabinet who were then
present. They, without exception, agree
in its accuracy.
1t is only necessary to add, that on
wednesday morning, the 18th, you
called on me, In company with Lieut.,
Gen. Sherman. After some prelimi-
nary conversation, you remarked that
an article in the National InteLLE-
ge'tceT, of that date, did you much in-
justice. replied that 1 had not read
the IntetLtgence1' of that morning. You
then first told me that it was your in
tention to urge Mr.. Stanton to resign
his Office.
After you had Withdrawn carefully
read the article of which you had
spoken and found that its statement of
the Misunderstanding between US was
substantially correct. On the 18th 1
caused it to be read to four of the five
members of the cabinet who were pres
ent at our conference on the 14th, and
they concurred in the general accuracy
or its statements respecting our con.
Versation upon that occasion.
In reply to your communication
have deemed 1t proper, in order to pre-
vent further misunderstanding, to
make this simple recital of facts.
ANDREW JOHNSON.
GEN. GRANTS REPLY.
The answer of General Grant, dated
February Sd, (yesterday,) brings the
matter ap to date, and is as follows:
HID o'Rs ARMIES OF UNITED STATES.
WASHINGTON, d. c., Feb. 8, '6s.
His ErcetLency d. johnson, President
of the Ullited iStdteS.-SIR: 1 have the
honor to acknowledge the receipt of
your communication of the S1st, ult.,
in answer to mine of the 29th ult. After
careful reading and comparison of
1t with the article in the National In.
teLLigenceT of the 18th ult.; the article
over the initials 81. b. ST." in the New
York World of the 9th ult., purporting
to be based upon your statement, and
that of members of the cabinet therein
named, find it only to be but a reiter-
ation-only somewha more in detail
of the "many and gross misrepresen-
tations" contained in these articles,
and which my statement of the facts
set forth ihmy letter of the 2Sth ult.
was intended to correct, and here re-
assert the correctness of my statements
In that letter, anything in yours in re-
ply to 1t to the contrary notwithstand-
ing.
1 confess my surprise that the cabi-
net officers referred to should so greatly
misapprehend the facts IN the matter of
admissions alleged to have been made
by me at the cabinet meeting of the
18th ult. as to suffer their names to be
made the basis of the charges in the
newspaper articles referred to. in agree
ing to the accuracy, as you affirm they
do, of your account of what occurred
at that meeting.
You know that we parted on Satur-
day, the 11th ultimo, without any
promise on my part, either express or
| implied, to the effect that would hold
| NJ IN 1f1 NFS of ~