The Portland daily press., 1885-10-24
GRANT AND JOHNSON.

VmCG kEOuES-9 as Hf1s TO -. ps NE filJ SHu
GRANT AND JOHNSON.
Mr.. Depew's Statements Still Under
Consideration.
NEW YORK, Oct 23.-The contribution to po-
litical history that Chauncey NJ. Depew has just
made is causing great deal of trouble. The ma
jority ofpersons who have read the article, friend
and foe of Grant, do not hesitate to say that De
pew is mistaken or has put the wrong construc-
tion on the conversation with Grant on the sub
ject. Col. Fred Grant, to whom the letter was adj
dressed by Mr. Depew, said that he had evidence
to substantiate the assertion, and there is a very
loud demand for Colonel Grant to come forward
and do so. Neither Colonel Grant nor Mr.. Depew
will enter into any explanation and this gives rise
to the story that they were either mlslnformed or
have not the evidence to sustain them.
LOUISVILLE, KY, Oct. 23-The Courier-Jour-
nal says edtorially, that cit is astonishing that
among all the wise men of the East, among all
those so busy writing history not one should re-
member that General Grant did appear before the
Judiciary Committee and give his testimony.
General Grant certainly does not sustain MI De
did not propose to recognize Congress composed
of Southern members and the Democrats OF the
North. He asserts that in his public speeches
when swinging around the circle President john
son did suppose case, and then asked winch
would be the legal Congress- and he denies that
he said even this much to Gen. Grant in private.
This and no more Is the substance OF Johnsons
treas Jn and it is plain that what is new in Mr. De-
pews letter is not true, and what is true is not
new.
ST. LOUIS NO., Oct. 23.-Touching the question
as TO whether Gen. Grant did or did not favor the
impeachment of President,Johnson, as raised by q
recent correspondence between Col. Grant and
Mr.. Chauncey Depew, the GloDe-Democrat tnls
morning prints the following statement made by
Gen. John b. Henderson, who was in the Senate
at that time, and will be remembered as one OF the
very few Republican Senators who voted against
the impeachment. Gen. Henderson was also an
intimate friend of Gen. Grant and had superior
opportunities of knowing that gentleman'S views
at that time. The statement is as follows:
There were two separate ana dlstlncL move
ments to mpeach President Johnson. One was
In the House in December, 1867 Immediately on
the assembling OF Congress II w was naSed on a ane
ial session of Congress in july 1867, to inyest-
gate and report whether it was advisable to nm
peach Mr.. johnson. Ispeak only by memory, put
at least action was taken in December and the
proposed articles of impeachment were voted
down by very large majority & Gen. zen Gfa nenas mas
of Mr.. Johnsons Cabinet, and have various rea-
sons for stating that at that time he was opposed
to the impeachment of Mr.. johnson. Gen. Grant
had accepted the position of Secretary OF War IN
the preceding August on the suspension OF EdWn
M Stanton by the President under the provisions
of the Tenure of Office act. That act provided
that in cases where the President suspended an
ofieer, his reasons for the suspension ana the
name of the pro tem appointment should pc sup, up
mitted to the Senate. If the Senate approved the
suspension the old incumbent STOOD re-
moved. 1.-THE Senate refused to concur the
new nomination fell and the old incumbent
resumed his place. Within the required time
after the assembling OF the Senate IN Septenl-
requirements of the Tenure of Office act, submit
ted his reasons for the suspension OF MI: stanton
to the Senate, which were referred to the appro-
pirate committee, and, as remember now, with
out looking to the records, that committee made
an adverse report. Within short tlne aitef me
reconvening of Congress the Senate proceeded IN
executive session. and finally late at night came TO
a final vote, sustaining the report OF the commit
tee and overrulng the Presidents action in sus-
pending Mr.. Stanton. Under the law, this vote,
ipse factO, reinstated Mr.. Stanton and removed
General Grant; Next morning MT. stanton ap-
peared in the War Office at an early hour, before
the arrival of General Gront and on the ARRIVAL OF
General Grant Mr.. Stanton informed him OF the
again Secretary of War. General Grant retired,
and in few days occurred the scene between Mr.
johnson and General Grant in the Executive
Mansion and in the presence of all the Cabinet ex
cept, possibly Mr. Seward. In that interview, 1t
will be remembered Mr.. johnson stated to Gener-
al Grant that he (Grant had accepted the port
folio of the War Department with the agreement
that in case the Senate disagreed with the actl0n
of the President in removing Mr.. Stanton he
(Grant) would either hold the Office and contest
with Mr.. Stanton the consttutionality OF the Ten
ure of Office act, or in the event OF his unwilling
ness to do so he would give timely notice thereof
to the President in order that the latter might
substitute the name of some other person VINO
would contest the validity of the act in question
with Mr. Stanton.
Mr.. johnson claimed that in his opinion the ac-
ti0n was unconstitutional and declared that ne
was led to believe that Gen. Grant concurred with
him in such opinion. AS to what was sad ana
done in that interview, Gen. Grant and the PreSl-
dent seriously differed and members of the Cabi-
net who were present were called upon to sub
stantiate the Presidents version. Up to that
time never knew or heard of any serious misun;
derstanding between Grant and Johnson ana l
am satisfied that up to that period Gen. Grant
was opposed to any action looking to the lmpeacn-
ment OF MI. johnson. short time alter tne an an
yoved nothing but a question OF yeraclty between
the parties can state positively that Gen Grant
became warm and jealous advocate OF lmpeach-
ment, and continued so until the final vote on the
subject. speak only from memory as to dates,
but the substantial facts are correct"
PI1Tr DT1TA al Frank A.
OF Philadelphia, who was in Washington during
the Johnson administration and who has just
about completed his memoirs OF General Grant,
which will soon be published, deals in his book
with the subject of the controversy recently
started By the p @ E M u
In which the latter describes the peculiar reia-
tions existing between President johnson ana
himself. Colonel Burrs book confirms the story
every particular.
In further dealings with the same subject
Colonel Burr details the manner in which General
Sherman caused President johnson to deylate
from his proposed course of sending Grant 10
Mexico. Sherman, he says went to Johnson soma ana
court-martial before he would obey the orders to
go to Mexico, and Sherman volunteered to q go
himself. AS there was no other alternative Sher-
man was ordered TO Mexico and went, while
Grant remained in Washington. sherman also,
the author says, was convinced that President
Johnson's reason for wanting Grant to go to Mex
leo was that he wanted to get rid of him. during
this critical period The author hoin says i vas as
Maryland to sustain Johnson should cohncC
occur between the President and Congress.
investigate the matter and they reported
that the organization numbered 5000 men, armed
and drilled. There was Also at that Tune, force
of 5000 veterans in Washington which had been
organized by Secretary Stanton, and whlch was was
under command of Major General, WHO'S stiil
living This force was organized to be in readi-
ness for the impending conflict between the Presl-
dent and Congress. The President was commanq-
er-in-chef, and therefore IN command OF tne ted-
eral forces, while Gen. Grant stood between the
two like barrier, warning both sides to keep tne
peace.
Gen. Grant bluntly which side he would take IN
such conflict, and Grant replied, That depends
upon which side is the revolutionary party IL
confidential letters were sent by the Secretary OF
the Navy TO leading naval officers, several OF
whom are still living, asking for the same lntor-
nation.
BOSTON, Oct. 23-Regarding the strange story
said to have been told to Chauncey NJ. Depew by
General Grant. General Butler said today when
asked why the matter was not brought out at the
impeachment trial OF Andrew johnson, "Ihere
would be many reasons why that matter could
not have been brought into the impeachment trial.
Because there was no charge and no article OF I'M
peachrnent which charged Johnson win that lt. Of
pctent. Neither was there any legal or proper
evidence by which it could have been proven, OF
known to the public, or to members OF the HOUSE
that time and General Grant II he he nag ith peen
a 1proached by his commander,in-cmef Win any
proposition in the confidence that must aus
itary movements, could not disclose 1t.
There was another project of President Johnsons
as TO revoutionizing the government which was
not brought into the impeachment proceedings.
+ myself had some very strong moral evidence
npon two questions which / did not care to make
known to the public in the impeachment proceed
lgs, but one Of which | investigated secretly as
chairman of the committee for that pur-
pose, and while there was disclosed to me some
very damaging facts under the circumstances
they were not so conclusive that deemed il prop
rr to exhibit the article of Impeachment against
.he President of the United States i'll that behalf.
i still retain some of the instruments of evidence
thaf strongly tend to support my belief The 9th
,sr proposition of Mr.. johnson to control the gov
arnment. differing from that of Gen. Grants in
the measures to be taken, but not in the end to be
reached, it now seems to me, for the first time
must have been made after Gen. Grant had refus-
ed TO accede to Johnson's proposition, and know,
ing now what had been said to Grant, it would
seem to show that that proposition was entertain
ed because of Grants refusal, ana Wne Wildt Was
known to me in regard to it gave me strong be-
eI,. 1a