Year: 1868

the receipt Oh Lna1 oAhSA3A hNeiS.
thus, in disregard of the understanding be-
tween US, vacated the office without giving
me notice of your intention to do so. 1t is
but just however, to say that IN your commu
nieation YOU claim that you did inform me oi
your purpose, and "thus fulfilled the promise
made in our last preceding conversation on
the subject" The fact that such promise
existed is evidence of an arrangement of the
kind have mentioned,


You had found in our, first conference
'that the President was desirous of keeping
Mr.. Stanton out of Office, whether sustained
in the suspension or not" You knew what
reasons had induced the President to ask from
YOU promise You .atso knew that in case
your views of duty did not accord with his
own convictions, it was his purpose to fill your
place by another appointment. Even ig~
noring the existence of n positive UNDER
standing between us, these conclusions were
plainly deducblc from our various conversa-
tions. tits certain, however, that even under
these circumstances you did not offer to re-
turn the place to my possession, but, accord
ing to your own statements, placed yourself
in position when, could have anticipated
your action, would have been compelled to
ask of you, as l was compelled to ask of your
predecessor in the War Department, a letter
of resignation, or else to resort to the more
disagreeable expedient of suspending you by
q successor.


As stated in your letter, the nomination of
Governor Cox, of Ohio, for the Office of Sec,
retary of War was suggested to me. His
appointment as Mr.. Stanton's successor was
urged in your name, and it was said that his
selection would save further embarrassment,
l did not think that in the selection Of cab
met officer 1 should be trammeled by such
considerations. l was prepared to take the
responsibility of deciding the question in ac-
cordance with my ideas of constitutional du-
ty, and having determined upon course
which 1 deemed right and proper, was anx-
ious to learn the steps you would take should
the possession of the War Department be de-
manded by Mr.. Stanton Had your action
been in conformity with the understanding
between us, | do not believe that the embar-
rassment would have attained its present pro-
portions, or that the probability OF its repeti-
ton would have been so great


| know that with view to early ternIi-
nation of state of affairs so detrimental to
the public interests you voluntarily offered,
both on Monday, the 18th instant, and on
the succeeding Sunday, to call upon Mr..
Stanton and urge upon him that the good of
the service required his resignation. [ con
fess that / considered your proposal as a sort
of reparation for the failure, on your part, to
act in accordance with an understanding moro
than once repeated, which [ thought had re-
ceived your iuil assent, and under which you
could have returned to me the Office which [
had conferred upon you, thus saving yourself
from embarrassment and leaving the rcspon-
sibiity where it properly belonged, with the
President, who is accountable for the faith
ful execution OF the laws.


have not yet been informed by you
whether, as twice proposed by yourself, you
had called upon Mr.. Stanton aud made an
effort to induce him voluntarily to resign from
the War Department. You conclude your
communication with a reference to our con-
versation at the meeting of the Cabinet held
on Tuesday, the 18th instant. In your ac>
count of what then occurred, you say that
after the President had given his version of
your previous conversations: you stated them
substantially as given in your letter that you
in no wise admitted the correctness Of his
statement of them, "though to soften the evi-
dent contradiction my statement gave, | said,
(alludiug to our first communication on the
subjcct,) the President might have under-
stood in the way he said, viz: that l had
promised to resign if did not resist the rein
statement. l made no such promise" My
recollection of what then transpired is diamet-
rically the reverse of your narration. In the
presence Of the Cabinet l asked you:


First If, in conversation which took place
shortly after your appointment as Secretary of
War, al interim, you did not agree either to
remain at the head of the War Department,
and abide any judicial proceedings that might
follow non concurrence by the Senate in Mr..
Stanton's suspension? Or, should you wish
not to become involved in such a controversy,
to put me in the same position with respect
to the Office as 1 occupied previous to your
appointment, by returning it to ne in time to
anticipate such action by the Senate


This you admitted,


Second. I then asked you if, at the confer
ence on the preceding Saturday [ had not,
to avoid misunderstanding, requested you to
state what you intended to do !; and further,
if, in reply to that inquiry, you had not re-
ferred to our former conversation saying that
from them 1 understood your position, and
that your action would be consistent with the
understanding which had been reached


To these questions you also replied in the
affirmative.


Third. next asked if at the conclusion
OF our interview on Saturday Il was not un-
derstood that we were to have another con-
ference on Monday before final action by the
Senate in the case of Mr.. Stanton.


You replied that such was the understand
ing, but that you did not suppose that the
Senate would act so soon that on Monday
YOU had been engaged in a conference with
General Sherman, and were occupied with
"many little matters" and asked if General
Sherman had not called on me that day p
What relevancy General Sherman's visit to
me on Monday had with the purpose for which
you were to have called am at loss to per-
ceive, as he certainly did not inform me
whether you had determined to retain posses
sion of the office or to afford me an opportu-
nifty to appoint a successor in advance of any
attempted reinstatement of MIR. Stanton.


This account of what passed at the cabi-
net meeting on the l4th instant widely differs