Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1868-02-19
The sW. q. GlIrnnitle.
GRANT-JOHNSON.
The Additional Correspondence
Another Letter From Each

AHOlHeE LCtAVi NAN
The President sent the following
letters to the House of Representa-
tiyes in accordance with the resolu-
ton of that body adopted on the 9th,
inst.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, /
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 1868. J
GEyERAL-The extraordinary char
acter of your letter OF the Sd inst,
would seem to preclude any reply on
my part, bnt the manner in which pub
licitY has been given TO the cores
pondence, of which that letter forms G
part, and the grave questions which
are involved. induce me to take this
mode of giving, as proper sequel to
the communications which have passed
between us, the statements of the five
members of the Cabinet who were
present on the occasion of ourconver
sation on the l4th ult. Copies OF the
letters which they have addressed to
me upon the subject are accordingly
herewith enclosed.
You speak ofmy letter OF the lst ult.,
as "a reiueration of the many and gross
MISREPRESENTATION contained IN certain
newspaper articles" and Teassert 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
the contrary notwithstanding" When
a controversy upon matters of 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 that
respectful discussion which is required
by the relations in which the parties
stand to each other, and degenerates
in tone and temper. In such case,
If there is nothing to rely upon but
the opposing statements, conclusions
must be drawn from those statements
alone, and from whatever intrinsic
probabilities they afford in favor of, or
against, either of the parties. l should
not shrink from this test in this con-
troyersy, but, fortunately, it is not left
to this test alone. There were five
Cabinet officers present at the conyer-
sation, the detail of which in my let
ter of the 28th ult. you allow yourself
TO say contains many and gross mis-
represen tations. These gentlemen
heard that conversation and have read
my statement. They speak for them
selves and l leave the proof without a
word of comment.
l deem If proper before concluding
this communication to notice some OF
the statements contained in your let.
ter. You say that a performance of
the promises alleged to have been made
by YOU to the President would have
involved, a resistance to law and an
inconsistency with the whole history
of my connection with the suspension
of Mr.. Stanton You then state that
you had fears that 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 re-
construction acts, and add, "It was
to prevent such an appointment that
l accepted the Office of Secretary of
War al interim, and not for the purpose
of enabling you to get rid of Mr.. Stan
ton by my Withholding it from him in
opposition to law, or, not doing so my
self, surrendering it to one who would,
as the statements and assumption in
your communication plainly indicate
was sought" First of all, you hero
admit that from the very beginning of
what you term the whole history of
your connection with Mr.. Stanton's
suspension you intended TO circumvent
the President. 1t was to carry out
that intent that you accepted the
appointment. This was in your mind
at the time of your acceptance. 1t was
not, then, in obedience to the order Of
your superior, as heretofore had been
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
Secretary 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 confined to yourself, if, when ex-
cepting the Office, you had done so
with a mental reservation to Illustrate
the President, it would have been a
deception. In the ethics of some per-
sons, such a course is allowable, but
you can not stand on even that ques-
tionable ground. The history of your
connection with this transaction as
written by yourself, places you in a
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 estab-
lIsh his right by a judicial decision.
Inow give that part of this history,
as written by yourself, in your letter of
the 28th ult: ''Some time after l as
sumed the duties of Secretary of War
Gd intsrim, the President asked me my
views as to the course Mr.. Stanton
would have TO pursue, in case the SEN
ate should not concur in his suspen-
sion, to obtain possession of the Office.
Ny reply was, in substance, that Mr..
Stanton would have to appeal to the
courts to reinstate him, illustrating my
position by citing the ground had ia
ken in the case of the Baltimore Po-
lice 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 accept
ing the Office, one motive was TO pre-
vent 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 could not, by
holding it, compel Mr.. Stanton to re-
sort to the Courts. You perfectly un-
derstood that, in this interview some
time after you accepted the Office, the
President, not content with your 81
lence, 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 that he made
mistake, but a violation of conf
dence reposed after that conversation
was no mistake of his, nor of yours
1t is the fact that only needs to be sta
ted-that, at the date of this converse
tion, you did not intend to hold the
Office with the purpose of forcing Mr..
Stanton into Court, but did hold it