Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1868-02-20
IcANsoN AND GRAN T,
IFvrs Of the ''Irrepressible Conflict, "
Another Ninety Days Affair
Brewing.
xH< EsreSidoIif Endorsed on hts
whole Cabinet, crccpt
stanton.
~. f.hnrrcs Grant with Insubordlnatlon.
.4d then Proves it--Grant Denies
the soft impeachment.
ON AND GRANT,

ma President, on the llth instant,
ii nccordance with a resolution, sent
the blowing correspondence to the
Ru1np House, together with letters
flo1n the Cabinet endorsing his state
mcnis, and thus shifting the question
Of reracity on Grants shoulders:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
WASHINGTON, February 10, 1868.
GfxERAL The extraordinary char
aotcr of your letter OF the Sd inst.
vouId seem to preclude any reply on
mvIpart, but the manner in which
publicity has been given TO the cor
rospondence of which that letter forms
a part, and the grave questions which
are.lnvolved, induce me to take this
mode Of giving as a proper sequel to
Recommendations which have pass
ed between us, the statements Of the
five members of the Cabinet who
were present on the occasion of our
conrersation on the l4th ult Copies
offhe letters which they haveaddress-
ed ID me upon .he subject arc accord
inolg herewith enclosed.
YOu speak Of my letter of the lst
ult. as a reiteratiye of the many and
gross misrepresentation contained in
certain newspapers articles, and reas-
eert the correctness of the statements
c0ntained in your communication Of
the 2Sth ult, adding, and here ! give
yonr own words, "anything in yours
in reply TO it the contrary notwith-
staining"
When q controversy upon matters
offsct reaches the point to which this
has been brought, further assertion
or aenial between the immediate par
ties should cease, especially when
upon either side it loses the character
of tbe respectful discussion which is
reauired by the relations in which the
parties stand to each other, and de-
generates in tone and temper. In such
q case, ifthere is nothing to rely upon
but the opposing statements, con
cIusions must be drawn from those
Easements alone, and from whatever
intrinsic probability they afford in
favor of or against either Of the par
ties. | should not shrink from the
controversy, but fortunately it is not
left to this test alone. There were
five Cabinet officers present at the
conyersation, the details of which were
given in my letter of the 2Sth ult.,
which you allow yourself TO say, con-
tains many and gross misrepresenta-
tions. These gentlemen heard that
eon7ersation, and have read my state
nert. They speak for themselves,
and ! leave the proof without word
ofcomment.
I deem it proper before concluding
this communication, to notice some of
tho statements contained in your let
ter. You say that performance of
the promises alledged to have been
made by you to the President, would
have involved "aresistance to law and
an Inconsistency with the whole his
tory of my connection with the sus-
ponsion of Mr. Stanton" b" You then
state that you had fears the President
would, on the removal of Stanton, ap-
point some one nhis p ace who would
enabarrass the army in carrying out
the reconstruction acts, and add, sit
was to prevent such an appointment
thai | accepted the Office of Secretary
Of War dd interum, and not for the
purpose of enabling you to get rid OF
Mr. Stanton by my Withholding ii
from him in opposition to the law, or,
not doing so myself, surrendering it
10 one who would, as the statements
and assumptions in your oommunica-
tion plainly indicate, it was sought"
First ofall you here admit that from
The very beginning Of what you term
yonr whole history of your connection
Will Mr. Stanton's suspension, you in
tended TO circumvent the President
Hwas to carry out that intent that
yop accepted the appointment. This
was in your mind at the time Of your
acceptance. Itwas not then in obedi-
ence to the order of your superior, as
hortoforc been supposed, that you as
suned the duties of the Office You
knew it was the Presidents purpose
20 prevent Mr.. Stanton from resuming
the office of Secretary of War, and
you intended TO defeat that purpose.
Yoh accepted the Office, not in the
interest OF the President, but Of Mr.
Stanton. If this purpose, so enter
t4ined by you, had been confined to
yourseli; If, when accepting the Office.
you had done so with mental reser-
xhiion to fustrate the President, il
would have been a deception. In the
ethics of some persons such a course
u allowable but you cannot stand
even upon that questionable ground.
Vhg'history OF your connection with
this Transaction, as written by your
self places YOU in a different predica-
nent, and shows that you not only
concealed your design from the Pres
ident but induced him tosuppose that
you would carry out his purpose to
keep Mr.. Stanton out of office by re-
tanning it yourself after an attempted
YeSforation of the Senate, so as TO re
Quire Mr. Stanton TO establish his
right by judicial decision.
I now give that part of this history
as written by yourself in your letter
q the the 2Sth ult. u.
Some time after I assumed the duties Of socre-
t4f{ oi War I'D iHternm, the President asked my
fi<Fs ns to the course Mr. Stanton would have 10
Irf>Ns IN case the Senate should not concur IN bis
fniIersion to obtain possession Of the ceice. My
f1|| was, In substance, that Nr. Stanton would
n&It D appeal 20 the courts 10 rcinstaic him. illus
ft4t'1E my position by citing the ground had
taken ID the case Of the Baltimore Police Commits