The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1868-02-21

been heretofore supposed, that you as
Sumed 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 entertain
ed by you, had been confined to your
| self; if, when accepting this Office, you
had have done SO with mental rcser
walton to Illustrate the President, it
| would have been a 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 the
transaction, as written by yourself,
place you 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 restOra-
| ton by the Senate, so as to require Mr..
| Stanton to establish his right by judic-
ial decision.
| InOw give that part Ofthis "histOry,"
as written by yOurSelfi in your letter of
| the 18th ultimO: "SOme time after |
assumed the duties of Secretary of War
I'D interim, the President asked me my
views as to the course Mr.. Stanton
would have to pursue, in case the Sen
ate should nOtconcur in his suspension,
10 obtain possession Of his office. My
reply was, is substance, that Mr.. Stan
ton would have to appeal to the courts
| to reinstate him, illustrating my pO-
sitiOn by citing the ground l had taken
| in the case of the Baltimore police COM
missiOners."
Now, at that time, as you admit in
your letter the Sd instant, you held
the Office for the very object of defeat
ing an appeal to the courts. In that
letter you say that in occupying the
office one motive was to prevent the
President from appointing some other
person who would retain possession,
and thus make judicial proceedings
necessary.
You know the president was unwil-
ling 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 ac-
cepted the Office, the President, not
cOntented with your silence, desired
an expression Of your views, ana you
answered him that Mr.. Stanton
would have to appeal to the courts"
If the President had repOsed conf
dence before he knew your views, and
that confidence had been violated, ii
might have been said he made mis-
take but a violation Of confidence re-
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
purpose of forcing .Mr. Stanton into
court, but did hold it then and had ac.
cepted 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 your
self, Il have accepted the office, and
now hold it to defeat that course"
The excuse you make-a subsequent
paragraph of that letter of the 2Sth
ultimO-that afterwards you changed
your views as to what would be prop
er course, had 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 office to Nr. Stall
ton. 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 your
self from the beginning. l will only
notice one more statement in your
letter Of the Sd inst, that the perfOr
NANCE of the promises which, it is
alleged, were made by you, would
have involved you in the resistance OF
law. | know of no tatute that would
have been violated had you, carrying
out YOUR promises in good faith, tender
ed your resignation when you con-
cluded not t0 be made party in any
legal proceedings. You add; Il am
in a measure confirmed in this COnclu-
sion by your recent orders directing
me- to disObey orders from the Secre-
tary of War, my superior and your su-
bOrdinate, without having counter
manded his authority to issue the or
ders | am to disObey."
On the 24th 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 18th, in compliance with your
request, ] did giVe you instructions in
writing mot to obey any oFdeFs from
the War Department assumed to be is
sued by the direction of the President,
unless such order Is known by the gen
eral commanding the armies Of the u
nited States to have been authorized by
the Executive"
There are some orders which q Secre-
tsry Of War may issue without the
authority of the President; there are
others which he Issued simply as the
agent of the President, and which pur-
ports to he shy direction" Of the PreSi-
dent. For such orders the President
is responsible, and lie should therefore
know and understand what they are
befure giving such CORRECTIONS" Mr..
Stanton states, in his letter of the 4th
inst, WhiGi2 accompanies the publish
ed cores pOndence, that he "has had
no correspondence with the President
since the 18th August las, :" and he
further says that since he resumed the
duties of the office he has continued to
discharge 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
0Eders from him"
1t thus seems that Mr.. Stanton now
discharges the duties OF the War
Department without any reference to
L., Il