PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



653 



agraph of that letter of the 28th ultimo, that after- 

 ward you changed your views as to what would be 

 a proper course, has nothing to do with the point 

 now under consideration. The point is, that, before 

 you changed your views ; you had secretly determined 

 to do the very thing which at last you did surrender 

 the office to Mr. Stanton. You may have changed 

 your views as to the law, but you certainly did not 

 change your views as to the^ course you had marked 

 out for yourself from the beginning. 



I will only notice one more statement in your let- 

 ter of the 3d instant that the performance of the 

 promises which it is alleged were made by you would 

 have involved you in the resistance of law. I know 

 of no statute that would have been violated had 

 you, carrying out your promises in good faith, ten- 

 dered your resignation when you concluded not to be 

 made a party in any legal proceedings. You add : 



" I am in a measure confirmed in this conclusion 

 by your recent orders directing me to disobey orders 

 from the Secretary of War, my superior and your 

 subordinate, without having countermanded his au- 

 thority to issue the orders I am to disobey." 



On the 24th ultimo you addressed a note to the 

 President, requesting in writing' an order given to 

 you verbally five days before, to aisregard orders from 

 Mr. Stanton as Secretary of "War until you "knew 

 from the President himself that they were his or- 

 ders." 



^ On the 29th, in compliance with your request, I did 

 give you instructions in writing "not to obey any 

 order from the War Department assumed to be issued 

 by the direction of the President, unless such order 

 is known by the General commanding the armies of 

 the United States to have been authorized by the 

 Executive." 



There are some 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 direc- 

 tion" of the President. For such orders the Presi- 

 dent is responsible, and he should therefore know and 

 understand what they are before giving such " direc- 

 tion." Mr. Stanton states in his letter of the 4th 

 instant, which accompanies the published correspond- 

 ence j that he " has had no correspondence with the 

 President since the 12th of August last ; " and he fur- 

 ther says that since he resumed the duties of the 

 office he has continued to discharge them " without 

 any personal or written communication with the 

 President ; " and he adds, " No orders have been 

 issued from this Department in the name of the Pres- 

 ident with my knowledge, and I have received no 

 orders from him." 



It thus seems that Mr. Stanton now discharges the 

 duties of the War Department without any reference 

 to the President, and without using his name. 



My order to you had only reference to orders " as- 

 sumed to be issued by the direction of the President." 

 It would _ appear from Mr. Stanton' s letter that you 

 have received no such orders from him. However, 

 in your note to the President of the" 30th ultimo, in 

 which you acknowledge the receipt of the written 

 order of the 29th, you say that you have been in- 

 formed by Mr. Stanton that he has not received any 

 order limiting his authority to issue orders to the 

 Army, according to the practice of the Department, 

 and state that " while this authority to the War De- 

 partment is not countermanded it will be satisfactory 

 evidence to me that any orders issued from the War 

 Department by direction of the President are author- 

 ized by the Executive." 



The President issues an order to you to obey no 

 order from the War Department, purporting to be 

 made "by the direction of the President," until you 

 have referred it to him for his approval. You reply 

 that you have received the President's order, and 

 will not obey it, but will obey an order purporting 

 to be given by his direction, if it comes from the War 

 Department. You will not obey the direct order of 



the President, but will obey his indirect order. If, 

 as you say, there has been a practice in the War De- 

 partment 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 not 

 the President countermand any such order issued to 

 you from the War Department ? If you should re- 

 ceive an order from that Department, issued in the 

 name of the President, to do a special act, and an order 

 directly from the President himself not to do the act, 

 is there a doubt which you are to obey? You answer 

 the question when you say to the President, in your 

 letter of the 3d instant, the Secretary of War is " my 

 superior and your subordinate," and yet you refuse 

 obedience to the superior out of deference to the sub- 

 ordinate. 



Without further comment upon the insubordinate 

 attitude which you have assumed, I am at a loss to 

 know how you can relieve yourself from obedience 

 to the orders of the President, who is made by the 

 Constitution the Commander-in-Chief of the Army 

 and Navy, and is therefore the official superior as 

 well of the General of the Army as of the Secretary 

 of War. Respectfully yours, 



ANDREW JOHNSON. 

 General U. S. GRANT, commanding Armies of the 



United States, Washington, D. C. 



Copy of letter -addressed to each of the members of 

 the Cabinet present at the conversation between the 



President and General Grant on the \Uli of Jan- 

 uary, 1868. 



EXECUTIVE MANSION, ) 

 WASHINGTON, D. C., February 5, 1868. j 

 SIB: The Chronicle of this morning contains a 

 correspondence between the President and General 

 Grant, reported from the War Department, in answer 

 to a resolution of the House of Eepresentatives. I 

 beer to call your attention to that correspondence, 

 and especially to that part of it which refers to the 

 conversation between the President and General 

 Grant, at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th 

 of January, and to request you to state what was said 

 in that conversation. 



Very respectfully, yours, 



ANDREW JOHNSON. 



WASHINGTON, D. C., February 5, 1868. 



SIB : Your note of this date was handed to me this 

 evening. My recollection of the conversation at the 

 Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, 

 corresponds with your statement of it in the letter 

 of the 31st ultimo, in the published correspondence. 

 The three points specified in that letter, giving your 

 recollection of the conversation, are correctly stated. 

 Very respectfully, GIDEON WELLES. 



To the PRESIDENT. 



TREASURY DEPABTMENT, February 6, 1868. 



SIB : I have received your note of the 5th instant, 

 calling my attention to the correspondence between 

 yourself and General Grant, as published in the 

 Chronicle of yesterday, especially to that part of it 

 which relates to what occurred at the Cabinet meet- 

 iug on Tuesday, the 14th ultimo, and requesting me 

 to state what was said in the conversation referred to. 



I cannot undertake to state the precise language 

 used, but I have no hesitation in saying that your 

 account of that conversation, as given in your letter 

 to General Grant under date of the 31st ultimo, sub- 

 stantially and in all important particulars accords 

 with my recollection of it. 



With great respect, your obedient servant, 



HUGH McCULLdCH. 



The PRESIDENT. 



POST-OFFICE DEPABTMENT, ) 

 WASHINGTON, February 6, 1868. f 

 Sia : I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th Feb- 

 ruary, calling my attention to the correspondence, 



