Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-02-12

appeal TO d tJutS ~
ground I mad taken in the case. OF the
Baltimore Police commissioners" Now,
AT RAJ time, as you admit in your letter
~ n Cd nit, YOU held the Office Tor the
very purpese OF defeating that appeal 70
tbe Courts. You say that in accepting the
ofIice one motive was "tO prevent the
! President from appointing some other
narson who would retain possession"
Won knew that the President was
unwilling to trust the Office with
any one who would not by holding
il. compel Air. Stanton to resort TO the
courts, you perfectly understood in this
interview, some time sfter you acceppeu
the Office, that The President, not con
tent with yOur silence, desired an eX~
preston of your views, and you answered
MIN that MIR. Stanton would have to
annpaI to the courts" If the President
hod reposed confidence in you, before he
knaw Vour views, and that confidence
had been violated, it might have been
said that be made a mistake, but in the
violation Of the confidence reposed in
ycu after that conversation, there could
be no mistake Of his or Of yodrs. This
fact alone needs to be stated; at the date
of this conversation you did not
intend TO hold the office with
the purpose OF forcing BIZ. stanton
into court, but did hold iT then, and had
accepted it to prevent that course being
carried out. In other words, you said to
the President, "that Is the proper
course" and 10 yourself, 81 have &C
cepted this Office, and now hold il, to
defeat that cRuse.n The excuse that you
make in a subsequent paragraph Of that
letter Of the 2Sth ult, that afterwards
YOU changed your views as 10 what
/ would be the proper course, has nothing
to do with the point now under consider
alton the point is that before you
/ changed your views you had seeretly de-
| termined to do the very thing which at
last yon did-surTender the Office to Mr..
SLantsn. You certainly did not change
your views as to the course you had
marked out for yourself from the begin
ming.
ITiil only notice one more statement
ia Your letter of the 81 inst, VIZ: that
the performance OF the promise alleged
to have been made by you would have
involved you in a resistance to the law.
know Of no statute that would have
been violated had you carried cut your
promises in good faith, or bad you ten
dered your resignation when you con-
Guided not to be made q party 10 any
legal proceedings. You add: ~ ana III
2 measure confirmed in this conclusion
bv your recent orders to disobey orders
from the Secretary of War, my superior
and your subordinate, without having
countermanued his authority TO issue the
orders I am to disobey." On the
2lth ult. you addressed q note
to the President, requesting
in writing an order given to
you verbally five days before, to disre-
gard orders from Mr.. Stanton, as Secre-
tary of WaT, 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 not to obey any orders from
the War Department assumed to be
] issued by direction of the President,
unless such order was known by the
! General commanding the armies Of the
United States to have been authorized by
the Executive. There are come 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, and which
purport to be by direction OF the
| President, and for such orders the Presi-
dent is responsible and he should there
fore know and understand what they
are before giving such directions. Mr..
Stanton, 10 his letter OF the 4th inst
which accompanied the published cor
r~espOudence with the President since the
18th of August, says that since he re-
sumed the dnties of the Office he has
continued to discharge them ~withoutany
personal or written communication with
the President. He further adds: No
orders have been issued from this de-
Bartment in the name of the President,
with my knowledge, and I have received
80 ,-N-zs f-,r- him - II IA ma EGapnG that
Mr.. Stanton now discharges the duties
Of the War Department without any ref
erence to the President, and without
using his name. The order had reference
only TO the orders assumed to be issued
by the President. 1t would seem from
Mr.. Stsnton's letter hat you had re-
ceived no such orders from him, though
in your note to the President on the 18Th
nit, in which you acknowledged the re-
ceptiUn of the written orders of January
29th, you say you have been informed by
Mr.. Stanton that be has not received any
order limiting his authority to issue
orders to the army ia accordance with
the practice of the Department, and you
/ state that while this authority of the
War Department Is not cQ-untermauded
it will be satisfactory evidence to me
YOU that any orders Issued from the
War Department, by direction of the
President, are authorized by the Execu-
tive. The President issues an order to
you to obey no orders from the War De-
paFtment, purpOrting to be made by his
direction, until you have referred it to
him for approval. You reply that you
have received the Presidents order, aud
will not obey il, but will obey an
order purpOrting to be given by his diree
ton, IL 1t come from the War Depart-
n,anf Won mill nhau ~, lF~,ak - - ]
from the President, but will obey his in
direct order. II, as you say, il has been
the practice in the War Department to
issue orders in the name Of the Presi-
dent, without his direction, does not the
precise order you have requested and
have received change the practice as to
the General Of the Army? Could rot
the President cOUutermand any such
order issued in the name of the Presi-
dent, to do a special act, and an order
from the President himself not TO do
the act; in this case is there a doubt as
to which you are to obey? You answer
the question when you say to the Pres
ideut 10 your letter of the 81 inst, 1.-THE
Secretary Of War is my superior and
your subordinate" and yet you refuse
obedience to the superior and act in
Difference to the subordinate. Without
further comment on the insubordinate
attitude which you have assumed, I am
at q loss to know how you can relieve
yourself from the orders of the President
who il made by the Constitution Com,
msnder-in-C Chief Of the Army and Navy.
and therefore your superior as General
of the Army as well as Secretary of
War. Respectfully yours,
ANDREW JOHNSON.
Gen. L. 5. Grant, Commanding Armies Uliued
States.
p. S.-The accompanying letter from
Gen. Grant was received since the trans
mission to the House of my communica.
ton Of this date, and is submitted to the
House as part OF the correspondence re-.
ferred to in the resolution of the 10Th.
Signed ANDltEW JOHNSON.
WASHINGTON, February 10. Isgs.
HIS ENcelleucy Andrew Johnson, President of
the United states:
Sir: / have the honor to ACKNOWLEDGE
the receipt of your communication Of the
10th inst, accompanied by statements of
five of the Cabinet ministers of their
recollection OF what occurred in the Cab.
met meeting on the l4th OF January ,
Without admitting any thing contained
ia these statements, where they differ
from anything heretofore stated by =
me, l propose to notice only 1
portion of your eommunica-
lion wherein am CHARGED f,
with characterization. 1 think it will be {
plain TO the reader that, in my letter of
the 30sh Of January, / did not propose to
any legal order of the President
distinctly given; but only to give The |
Interpretation what would be regarded {
as satisfactory evidence Of the Presidents
to orders communicated by the I
Secretary Of War" / will say, here. c
that your letter Of The 10th inst. contains {
The first indication I have bad that Won !
lid not accept that Interpretation /; for 4
he reason for giving that Interpretation Q
was clear to me before my letter of jan /
lary 30th wa written. The Secretary of