The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-02-13

the course Mr.. Stanton would haVl
to pursue, in case the Senate shoulC
not concur In his suspension, to OBJ
tain possession of the Office My re.
Il ply was in substance that Mr. StantoE
would have to appeal TO the courts Il
reinstate him. illustrating my position
by citing the ground l had taken In
the case of the Baltimore Police Com.
missioners.
Now, at this time, as you admit in
/ your letter of the Sd inst, you held
the Office for the very object Of defeat
ing an appeal 10 the courts. In that
letter you say that IN accepting 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 knew the President
was unwilling to trust the Office
with any one who could not, by hold
| ing 1t, compel Mr.. Stanton to resort
| to the courts. You perfectly under
stood that In this interview, some
time after you accepted the Office, the
4 President, not content with your ST.
lence, desired an expression of your
views, and you answered him that Mr.
Stanton would have to appeal 10 the
courts.
IF the President had reposed con
! fidence before he knew your views,
and that confidence had been violated
il might have been said he made
mistake; but violation of confidence
reposed after that conversation was no
mistake of his or yours. 1t Is the
fact only that needs to be stated, that
at the date Of this conversation you
did not intead to hold the Office with
the purpose Of forcing Mr. Stanton
into court; but did hold it then, aud
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, have accepted
this Office and now hold it to defeat
that course.
The excuse you make in a subse-
quent paragraph of that letter of the
2Sth ult., that afterWard you changed
your views as to what would be a
proper course, has nothing to do with
the point now under consideration
The point is, that before you had
changed your views you had secretly
determined to do the very thing
which you at last did-surrender the
office. to Mr.. Stanton. You may have
R.han dsyour views as to the law, but
yodAd Certainly did not change your
views as to the course you had marked
out for yourself from the beginning.
/ viii only notice one more state
ment5 in your letter of the 81 inst.
that the making good Of the
promises which It Is alleged were
made By you. involved you in the re-
sistance Of the law 4 know Of no
statute that would have been violated
had you carried out your promises IN
good faith, and rendered your resig-
nation when you concluded not TO be
made party in any legal proceed
ings. Fo 3ast aHar
You add: II am confirmed In this
conclusion, By your recent order di-
recting me to disobey orders from the
Secretary Of War, my superior and
your subordinate, without having
countermanded his authority to issue
the orders am to disobey.
On the oath ult you addressed a
note to the President requesting in
writing an order given to you verbal
ly five days before, to disregard orders
from Mr.. Stanton, as Secretary Of
War, until you knew from the PFesi-
dent himself that these we're bis
orders On the 18th, in compliance
with your request, did give you in
struetlons IN writing, not to obey
any order from the War Department,
to be issued by the direction of the
President, unless such order is known
by the General commanding the
armies of the United States to have
been authorized by the Executive.
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, aud which
purport to be by direction Of the
President For such order the
President is responsible.a and he should
therefore know aud understand what
they are before giving such direction
Mr. Stanton, in his letter of the 4th
inst, which accompanies the publish
ed correspondence, says he has had
no correspondence with the Presi-
dent since the 18th of August last,
and he further says that since he re-
turned to the duties Of the Office he
has continued to discharge them
without any personal or written CON-
municarion with the President, and
he adds. No orders have been
issued from this Department in the
name Of the President with my know
ledge, and [ have received no orders
from him" il thus seems that Dir.
Stanton now discharges the duties of
the War Department without any ref
erence to the President, and without
using his name My order to you had
only reference to orders assumed to