UNITED STATES. 



747 



State of North Carolina, and afterward became tho 



D turn for the other States. 



M ot' Mr. Stanton In-fore the 



umittue, he was usk-d the f<ill-w- 



iiiL,' >|ue-.!ioh : " l>id an\ one of tip- <'.i!i'mct express 



l of the power '!' the I '.inch of the 



vcrmm-nti which 



had liei-n in rcliellioii, wit limit the aid of Congress? " 

 i, " None whatever. I had myself enter- 

 tained no dmil't of the aiitliority of the 1'rcsidi-nt to 



res tor the or/ani/atioti of the rebel 

 on the plan proposed, during the vacatidb of Con- 

 gress, and airived in the plan specified in the, proc- 

 lamation in the case of North Carolina." 



There is, perhaps, no act of my administration for 

 which 1 have be.cn more denounced than tl 



t originated by me; but I shrink from no re- 

 sponsibility on that account, for the plan approved 

 itself to my judgment, ami I did not hesitate to carry 

 it into execution. 



Thus far, and upon this vital policy, there was per- 

 fect accord between the Cabinet ana myself, and I 

 saw no necessity for a change. 



lime passed on there was developed an unfor- 

 tunate ditference of opinion and policy between Con- 

 gress and th! 1'resident upon this same subject and 

 upon tho ultimate basis upon which the reconstruc- 

 tion of these States should proceed, especially upon 

 the question of negro suffrage. 



Upon this point three members of the Cabinet 

 found themselves to be in sympathy with Congress. 

 They remained only long enougn to see that the dif- 

 ference of policy could not be reconciled. They felt 

 that they should remain no longer, and a high sense 

 of duty and propriety constrained them to resign 

 their positions. We parted with mutual respect for 

 the sincerity of each other in opposite opinions, and 

 mutual regret that the difference was on points so 

 vital as to require a severance of official relations. 

 This was in the summer of 1866. The subsequent 

 sessions of Congress developed new complications 

 when the Suffrage Bill for tho District of Columbia 

 and tho Reconstruction Acts of March 2 and March 

 23, 1867, all passed over the veto. It was in Cabinet 

 consultations upon these bills that a difference of 

 opinion upon the most vital points was developed. 

 Upon these questions there was perfect accord b- 

 twcen all the members of the Cabinet and myself, ex- 

 cept Mr. Stanton. Ho stood alone, and the difference 

 of opinion could not be reconciled. That unity of 

 opinion which, upon great questions of public policy 

 or administration is so essential to the Executive, 

 was gone. 



I do not claim that the head of a department 

 should have no other opinions than those of the 

 President. lie has the same right, in the conscien- 

 tious discharge of duty, to entertain and express his 

 own opinions as has the President. What I do 

 claim is, that the President is the responsible head 

 of the administration, and when the opinions of the 

 hood of a department are irreconcilably opposed to 

 those of the President, in grave matters of policy and 

 administration, there is but one result which can 

 solve the difficulty, and that is a severance of tho 

 official relation. This, in the past history of the Gov- 

 ernment, has always been the rule ; and it is a wise 

 one, for such differences of opinions among its mem- 

 bers must impair the efficiency of any administra- 

 tion. 



I have now referred to the general grounds upon 

 which the withdrawal of Mr. Stan ton from my admin- 

 istration seemed to be proper and necessary ; but I 

 cannot omit to state a special ground, which, if it 

 stood alone, would vindicate my action. 



The sanguinary riot which occurred in tho city of 

 New Orleans on the 3th of Au-rust, 1866 2 justly 

 aroused public indignation and public inquiry, not 

 only as to those who were engaged in it. but aa to 

 those who. more or loss remotely, might be held to 

 responsibility for its occurrence. I need not remind 



the Senate of the effort made to fix that responnihilit v 

 on Hi The charge wan openly made, and 



again and again reiterated all through the !:.. 

 . nideut was warned in tim.-, hut i 



terl'ere. 



P.y telegrams from the I.'.. ,' uoi ' ; .vtrnor and 

 in -ral of Louisiana, dated the -.'7th and 

 i August, I was advised that a body < 

 gates, claiming to be a constitutional <-oir. 

 were about to assemble in New Orleans ; that the. 

 matter was before the Grand Jury, but that it would 

 In- impossible to execute ,.; v il process without a riot, 

 and this question was asked, " Is the military to in- 

 terfere to prevent process of court! " This question 

 , was asked at a time when the civil court* were in the 

 full exercise of their authority, and the answer sent 

 by telegraph, on the same 2Sth of August, was this: 

 "The military will bo expected to sustain, and not 

 interfere with, the proceedings of the courts." 



On the same 28th of August the following telegram 

 was sent to Mr. Stanton, b; 



then (owing to the absence of General Sheridan) in 

 command ofcthe military at New Orleans : 



if V'tnton, Secretary of War : 



A convention has been called with tho sanction :>f Gov- 

 ernor Wells, to nu-i-t here on Monday. The Lleutenant- 

 (MMi-rnor and city authorities think It unlawful, and propose 

 to break It up by arresting the delegates. I havo given 110 

 orders on the subject, but have warned the parties tint I 

 could not countenance or permit such action without In- 

 structions to that effect from the President. Please instruct 

 me at onco by telegraph. 



The 28th of August was on Saturday. The next 

 morning, the 29th, this dispatch was received by Mr. 

 Stanton at his residence in this city. He took no ac- 

 tion upon it, and neither sent instructions to General 

 Baird nimself nor presented it to me for such instruc- 

 tions. On the next day (Monday) the riot occurred. 

 I never saw this dispatch from General Baird until 

 some ten days or two weeks after the riot, when, 

 upon my call for all the dispatches, with a view to 

 their publication, Mr. Stanton sent it to me. These 

 facts oil appear in the testimony of Mr. Stanton before 

 the Judiciary Committee in the Impeachment inves- 

 tigation. 



On the 80th, the day of the riot, and after it was 

 suppressed, General Baird wrote to Mr. Stanton 

 a long letter, from which I make the following ex- 

 tracts : 



SIR: I have the honor to inform you that a very serious 

 riot occurred here to-day. I had not been applied to by the 

 convention for protection, but the Lieutenant-Governor and 

 the mayor had freely consulted with me, and I was so fully 

 convinced that it was so strongly the intent of tho city au- 

 thorities to preserve the peace, In order to prevent military 

 interference, that I did not regard an outbreak aa a thing to 

 bo apprehended. The Lieutenant-Governor had assured me 

 that even If a writ of arrest was issued by the court, the 

 sheriff would not attempt to serve it without my permis- 

 sion, and, for to-day, they designed to suspend it. 



I enclose herewith copies of my correspondence with the 

 mayor, and of a dispatch which the Lieutenant-Governor 

 claims to have received from the President. I regret that 

 no reply to my dispatch to you of Saturday has yet reached 

 me. General'Sherldan is still absent in Texas. 



The dispatch of General Baird, of the 23th, asks 

 for immediate instructions ; and his letter of the 30th, 

 after detailing the terrible riot which had just hap- 

 pened, ends with the expression of regret that the 

 instructions which he asked for were not sent. It is 

 not the fault or the error or the omission of the Presi- 

 dent that tliis military commander was left without 

 instructions; but for all omissions, for all errors, for 

 all failures to instruct, when instructions might have 

 averted this calamity, the President was openly and 

 ntly held responsible. 



Instantly, without waiting for proof, tho delin- 

 quency of the President was heralded in even" form 

 of utterance. Mr. Stanton knew then that the Presi- 

 dent was not responsible for this doliiuiuoncy. The 

 exculpation was in his power, but it was not given 



