DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, February 6, 1868_.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: The meeting to which you refer in your letter was a regular Cabinet

meeting. While the members were assembling, and before the President had

entered the council chamber, General Grant on coming in said to me that

he was in attendance there, not as a member of the Cabinet, but upon

invitation, and I replied by the inquiry whether there was a change in

the War Department. After the President had taken his seat, business

went on in the usual way of hearing matters submitted by the several

Secretaries. When the time came for the Secretary of War, General Grant

said that he was now there, not as Secretary of War, but upon the

President's invitation; that he had retired from the War Department. A

slight difference then appeared about the supposed invitation, General

Grant saying that the officer who had borne his letter to the President

that morning announcing his retirement from the War Department had told

him that the President desired to see him at the Cabinet, to which the

President answered that when General Grant's communication was delivered

to him the President simply replied that he supposed General Grant would

be very soon at the Cabinet meeting. I regarded the conversation thus

begun as an incidental one. It went on quite informally, and consisted

of a statement on your part of your views in regard to the understanding

of the tenure upon which General Grant had assented to hold the War

Department _ad interim_ and of his replies by way of answer and

explanation. It was respectful and courteous on both sides. Being in

this conversational form, its details could only have been preserved by

verbatim report. So far as I know, no such report was made at the time.

I can give only the general effect of the conversation. Certainly you

stated that, although you had reported the reasons for Mr. Stanton's

suspension to the Senate, you nevertheless held that he would not be

entitled to resume the office of Secretary of War even if the Senate

should disapprove of his suspension, and that you had proposed to have

the question tested by judicial process, to be applied to the person who

should be the incumbent of the Department under your designation of

Secretary of War _ad interim_ in the place of Mr. Stanton. You contended

that this was well understood between yourself and General Grant;

that when he entered the War Department as Secretary _ad interim_ he

expressed his concurrence in a belief that the question of Mr. Stanton's

restoration would be a question for the courts; that in a subsequent

conversation with General Grant you had adverted to the understanding

thus had, and that General Grant expressed his concurrence in it; that

at some conversation which had been previously held General Grant said

he still adhered to the same construction of the law, but said if he

should change his opinion he would give you seasonable notice of it,

so that you should in any case be placed in the same position in

regard to the War Department that you were while General Grant held

it _ad interim_. I did not understand General Grant as denying nor as

explicitly admitting these statements in the form and full extent to

which you made them. His admission of them was rather indirect and

circumstantial, though I did not understand it to be an evasive one.

He said that, reasoning from what occurred in the case of the police in

Maryland, which he regarded as a parallel one, he was of opinion, and so

assured you, that it would be his right and duty under your instructions

to hold the War Office after the Senate should disapprove of Mr.

Stanton's suspension until the question should be decided upon by the

courts; that he remained until very recently of that opinion, and that

on the Saturday before the Cabinet meeting a conversation was held

between yourself and him in which the subject was generally discussed.

General Grant's statement was that in that conversation he had stated

to you the legal difficulties which might arise, involving fine and

imprisonment, under the civil-tenure bill, and that he did not care to

subject himself to those penalties; that you replied to this remark that

you regarded the civil-tenure bill as unconstitutional and did not think

its penalties were to be feared, or that you would voluntarily assume

them; and you insisted that General Grant should either retain the

office until relieved by yourself, according to what you claimed was

the original understanding between yourself and him, or, by seasonable

notice of change of purpose on his part, put you in the same situation

which you would be if he adhered. You claimed that General Grant finally

said in that Saturday's conversation that you understood his views, and

his proceedings thereafter would be consistent with what had been so

understood. General Grant did not controvert, nor can I say that he

admitted, this last statement. Certainly General Grant did not at

any time in the Cabinet meeting insist that he had in the Saturday's

conversation, either distinctly or finally, advised you of his

determination to retire from the charge of the War Department otherwise

than under your own subsequent direction. He acquiesced in your

statement that the Saturday's conversation ended with an expectation

that there would be a subsequent conference on the subject, which he,

as well as yourself, supposed could seasonably take place on Monday.

You then alluded to the fact that General Grant did not call upon you

on Monday, as you had expected from that conversation. General Grant

admitted that it was his expectation or purpose to call upon you on

Monday. General Grant assigned reasons for the omission. He said he was

in conference with General Sherman; that there were many little matters

to be attended to; he had conversed upon the matter of the incumbency of

the War Department with General Sherman, and he expected that General

Sherman would call upon you on Monday. My own mind suggested a further

explanation, but I do not remember whether it was mentioned or not,

namely, that it was not supposed by General Grant on Monday that the

Senate would decide the question so promptly as to anticipate further

explanation between yourself and him if delayed beyond that day. General

Grant made another explanation--that he was engaged on Sunday with

General Sherman, and I think, also, on Monday, in regard to the War

Department matter, with a hope, though he did not say in an effort,

to procure an amicable settlement of the affair of Mr. Stanton, and

he still hoped that it would be brought about.

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Volume 6, part 2: Andrew Johnson · 第 519 / 803 题