question was as to the sympathies of the witness. I will put the question in this form. [To the witness.] Was the line of conduct he spoke of taking that which suited you?

Answer. I do not know whether it would ór no.

Question. Did you in that conversation give him any advice beyond standing firm what he should do?

Answer. No, sir; not any advice further than I have stated.

Question. After you parted there to whom did you first communicate this conversation that you had had there with General Thomas? Answer. Well, I communicated it-if the question is right for me to answer

Mr. STANBERY. Yes, sir; you will

answer it.

Answer. I communicated it to Mr. Tanner.
Question. Your friend?

Answer. Yes, sir; that night.

Question. Whereabouts did you communicate that to Mr. Tanner?

Answer. Going along the street.

Question. Going away from there that night? Answer. Yes, sir; if my memory serves me aright, I think I did that night.

Question. To whom next?

Answer. I cannot tell the next one exactly. Question. Do you mean to say you have no recollection now of telling anybody else but Tanner?

Answer. Yes; I told several that same thing. I did not charge my memory with the persons I told it to.

Question. You told several that night, the next day, or when?

Answer. The next day.
Question. In Washington?
Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. What did you tell, and whom to? Answer. I say I cannot recollect precisely the persons I told it to. I told it to several.

Question. Do you recollect any one besides Tanner?

Answer. Yes, I recollect a gentleman from Delaware.

Question. What was his name?

Answer. His name was Smith. [Laughter.] Question. What was the first name of that Mr. Smith?

Answer. It was not John. [Great laughter.] Question. What was it, if you say you recollect it was not John?

Answer. I think it was William.

Question. Whereabouts did you see William Smith?

Answer. In Washington.

Answer. I saw him on the street.

Question. Whereabouts?

Question. Near the court-house? Answer. No, sir.

avenue.

Answer. Yes, sir.

Answer. No, sir.

Answer. I did.

Question. After you had testified there, was General Thomas called in?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Was your testimony, as you have given it here, read over before him?

Mr. GROESBECK. We object to that.
The WITNESs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Now, I propose to ask whether General Thomas was asked if that was true, and if he admitted upon his oath that it was true, all you have stated.

Mr. CURTIS. We object to that, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I think it is competent.

Mr. CURTIS. We do not think they can support their witness by showing what a third person, General Thomas, said.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, (to the Managers.) Do you press the question?

If that

I do press the Mr. Manager BUTLER. question, Mr. Chief Justice, for this reason: upon an innocent and unoffending man there has been a very severe cross-examination within the duties of the counsel, undoubtedlyhe did not mean to do more than his dutyattempting to discredit him here by that crossexamination as to a conversation. cross-examination meant anything, that is what it meant. Now, I propose to show that the coconspirator here, Thomas, admitted the correctness of this man's statements. This man was heard as a witness by the House of Representatives; the Managers of the House of Representatives, having taken his testimony, not willing to do any injustice to General Thomas, brought General Thomas in and sat him down and on his oath put the question to him, is what this man says true? being the same then as he swears here, and General Thomas admitted it word for word. I think it is competent and do press it.

Mr. CURTIS. Our view of it is, Mr. Chief Justice, that, having called this witness and put him on the stand, they cannot show that he has, on a different occasion, told the same story. That is a plain matter, and I do not understand that that is the ground which they take.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. We do not propose that.

Mr. CURTIS. Then they offer the declarations of General Thomas, not in reference to any conspiracy, not in reference to any agreement between himself and the President as to

done pursuant to that conspiracy, but simply the declarations of General Thomas as to something which General Thomas had said to this witness to support the credit of the witness. We object to that as incompetent.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. President, having made the offer, and it being objected to, and it being clearly competent, if General Thomas is ever brought here to contradict it I will waive it.

Mr. CURTIS. Very well.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Then we are through with the witness; but we must request him to remain in attendance until discharged.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Now, Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the court adjourn until tomorrow at twelve o'clock.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is moved by the Senator from Wisconsin that the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, adjourn until tomorrow at twelve o'clock.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, sitting for the trial of the impeachment, adjourned until to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

THURSDAY, April 2, 1868.

The Chief Justice of the United States entered the Senate Chamber at five minutes past twelve o'clock and took the chair.

The usual proclamation having been made by the Sergeant-at-Arms

The Managers of the impeachment on the part of the House of Representatives appeared and took the seats assigned them.

The counsel for the respondent also appeared and took their seats.

The presence of the House of Representatives was next announced, and the members of the House, as in Committee of the Whole, headed by Mr. E. B. WASHBURNE, the chairman of that committee, and accompanied by the Speaker and Clerk, entered the Senate Chamber, and were conducted to the seats provided for them.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will
read the minutes of the last day's proceedings.
The Secretary read the Journal of the pro-
ceedings of the Senate yesterday sitting for the
trial of the impeachment.

Mr. DRAKE. I send to the Chair and offer
for adoption an amendment to the rules.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will
read the amendment.

The Secretary read as follows:

Amend rule seven by adding the following: Upon all such questions the votes hall be without a division, unless the yeas and nays he demanded by one fifth of the members present or requested by the presiding officer, when the same shall be taken. Mr. DRAKE. Please read the rule as it would be if amended.

The Secretary read as follows:

VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the presiding officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the presiding officer on the trial may rule all questions of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision; or he may, at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be without a division, unless the yeas and nays be demanded by one fifth of the members present or requested by the presiding officer, when the same shall be taken.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I suppose that, being a change of a rule, stands over for one day. The CHIEF JUSTICE. If any Senator objects.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir; I do object. The CHIEF JUSTICE. It will lie over for one day.

The Managers on the part of the House of Representatives will proceed with their evidence. Senators will please to give their attention.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. We propose now to call General Emory.

Mr. STANBERY. Before the Managers proceed with another witness we wish to recall for a moment Mr. Karsner, the last witness.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. President, I submit that if Mr. Karsner is to be recalled, the examination and cross-examination having been finished on both sides, he must be recalled as the witness of the respondent, and the proper time to recall him will be when they put in their case.

Mr. STANBERY. We wish to recall him but a moment to ask a question which, perhaps, would have been put if it had not been stopped yesterday.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there any objection to recalling the witness for the purpose of putting a single question to him?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Not if it shall not be drawn into a precedent.

GEORGE W. KARSNER recalled.

By Mr. STANBERY:

Question. Mr. Karsner, where did you stay that night of the 9th of March after you had the conversation with General Thomas?

Answer. I stayed at the house of my friend, Mr. Tanner, in Georgetown.

Question. What is the employment of Mr. Tanner?

Answer. I believe he is engaged in one of the Departments here in Washington. Question. In which one?

Answer. I think the War Department. Question. Do you recollect whether on the next morning you accompanied Mr. Tanner to the War Department?

Answer. I do not.

Question. You do not recollect that?

Answer. I do not recollect whether I accompanied him or not. Sometimes I did and sometimes I did not. I had other business, and sometimes I was engaged in that and did not accompany him, and at other times I did accompany him.

Question. At any time did you go with him to the War Department and see Mr. Stanton in regard to your testimony?

The WITNESS. I appeal to the court.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Answer the ques

tion.

Question. Will you state whether you paid attention to what was going on there, and whether you made any memorandum of it? Answer. I did pay attention, and I believe I made a memorandum of the occurrences as far as I observed them.

Question. Have you that memorandum? Answer. Yes, sir, [producing a paper.] Question. Will you please state, assisting your memory by that memorandum, what took place there, in the order as well as you can, and as distinctly as you can?

Answer. I believe, if my recollection serves me, that the memorandum covers it perhaps as distinctly as I could possibly state it. I wrote it immediately after the occurrence of the appearance of General Thomas, and perhaps it will state substantially and more perfectly than I could state from memory now what occurred.

Question. Unless objected to you may read it. Mr. STANBERY. We shall make no objec

tion.

The witness read as follows:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, February 22, 1868. In the presence of Secretary Stanton, Judge KELLEY, MOORHEAD, DODGE, VAN WYCK, VAN HORN, DELANO, and Freeman Clarke, at twenty-five minutes past twelve m., General Thomas, Adjutant General, came Good into this Secretary of War Office, saying, morning," the Secretary replying, "Good morning, sir." Thomas looked around and said, "I do not wish to disturb these gentlemen and will wait.' Stanton said, "Nothing private here; what do you want, sir?"

Thomas demanded of Secretary Stanton the surrender of the Secretary of War Office. Stanton denied it to him, and ordered him back to his own office as Adjutant General. Thomas_refused to go. "I claim the office of Secretary of War, and demand it by order of the President."

STANTON. Ideny your authority to-act, and order you back to your own office."

THOMAS. I will stand here. I want no unpleasantness in the presence of these gentlemen."

STANTON. "You can stand there if you please, but you cannot act as Secretary of War. I am Secretary of War. I order you out of this office and to your

own.

THOMAS. "I refuse to go, and will stand here." STANTON. "How are you to get possession; do you mean to use force?"

THOMAS. "I do not care to use force, but my mind is made up as to what I shall do. I want no unpleasantness, though. I shall stay here and act as Secretary of War."

STANTON. "You shall not, and I order you as your superior back to your own office.'

""

THOMAS. "I will not obey you, but will stand here and remain here."

STANTON. "You can stand there, as you please. I order you out of this office to your own. I am Secretary of War, and your superior.'

Thomas then went into opposite room across hall (General Schriver's) and commenced ordering General Schriver and General E. D. Townsend. Stanton entered, followed by MOORHEAD and FERRY, and ordered those generals not to obey or pay attention to General Thomas's orders; that he denied his assumed authority as Secretary of War ad interim, and forbade their obedience of his directions. I am Secretary of War, and I now order you, General Thomas, out of this office to your own quarters." THOMAS. "I will not go. I shall discharge the functions of Secretary of War."

STANTON. "You will not."

THOMAS. "I shall require the mails of the War Department to be delivered to me, and shall transact the business of the office."

STANTON. "You shall not have them, and I order you to your own office."

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the counsel for the respondent.) The witness is yours, gentlemen.

Cross-examined by Mr. STANBERY:
Question. Did the conversation stop there?
Answer. So far as I heard.
Question. You then left the office?

Answer. I left in about fifteen or twenty minutes after that. I left General Thomas in General Schriver's room, and returned into the Secretary of War's room.

Question. Did the Secretary return with you, or did he remain?

Answer. He remained a few moments in General Schriver's room, and then returned to

Question. Were you in Schriver's room at the time those orders were given?

Answer. I was at the threshold; I had reached the threshold. I believe I was the first that followed Secretary Stanton. I believe I was the first and Mr. MOORHEAD second. WILLIAM H. EMORY Sworn and examined. By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. State your full name? Answer. William Helmsley Emory. Question. What is your rank and command in the Army?

Answer. I am colonel of the fifth cavalry, and brevet major general in the Army. My command is the department of Washington. Question. How long have you been in command of that department?

Answer. Since the 1st of September, 1867. Question. Soon after you went into command of the department did you have any conversation with the President of the United States as to the troops in the department or their station?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Before proceeding to give that conversation, will you state to the Senate the extent of the department of Washington, to what it extends, its territorial limits, I mean?

Answer. The department of Washington consists of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Delaware, excluding Fort Delaware.

Question. State as well as you can; if you cannot give it all, give the substance of that conversation which you had with the President when you first entered upon command?

Answer. It is impossible for me to give anything like that conversation. I can only give the substance of it. It occurred long ago. He asked me about the location of the troops, and I told him the strength of each post, and as near as I can recollect the commanding officer of the post.

Question. Go on, sir; if that is not all.

Answer. That was the substance and important part of the conversation. There was some conversation as to whether more troops should be sent here or not. I recommended that there should be troops here, and called the President's attention to a report of General Canby, my predecessor, recommending that there should always be at the seat of Government at least a brigade of infantry, a battery of artillery, and a squadron of cavalry; and some conversation, mostly of my own, was had in reference to the formation of a military force in Maryland that was then going on. Question. What military force?

Answer. A force organized by the State of Maryland.

Question. Please state as well as you can what you stated to the President, in substance, relative to the formation of that military force.

Answer. I merely stated that I did not see the object of it, as near as I can recollect, and that I did not like the organization; I saw no necessity for it.

Question. Did you state what your objections were to the organization?

Answer. I think it is likely I did; but I cannot recollect exactly at this time what they were. I think it likely that I stated that they were clothed in uniform that was offensive to our people, some portions of them; and that they were officered by gentlemen who had been in the southern army.

Answer. I have.

Question. Is that a correct copy? Answer. That is a correct copy. Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the counsel for the respondent.) Shall I use it, gentlemen? Mr. CURTIS. Certainly.

Mr. EVARTS. Use it, subject to the production of the original.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. If desired. I suppose it will not be insisted on. [Handing a printed paper to the witness.] Will you read it? The witness read as follows:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 22, 1868. GENERAL: The President directs me to say that he will be pleased to have you call on him as early as practicable.

Very respectfully and truly, yours,
WILLIAM G. MOORE,
United States Army.

Question. How early did you call?
Answer. I called immediately.
Question. How early in the day?
Answer. I think it was about midday.
Question. Whom did you find with the Pres-
ident, if anybody?

Answer. I found the President alone when I first went in.

Question. Will you have the kindness to state as nearly as you can what took place there?

Answer. I will try and state the substance of it, but the words I cannot undertake to state exactly. The President asked me if I recollected a conversation he had had with me

when I first took command of the department? I told him that I recollected the fact of the conversation distinctly. He then asked me what changes had been made. I told him no material changes, but such as had been made I could state at once. I went on to state that in the fall six companies of the twenty-ninth infantry had been brought to this city to winter; but as an offset to that four companies of the twelfth infantry had been detached to South Carolina on the request of the commander of that district; that two companies of artillery that had been detached by my predecessor, one of them for the purpose of aiding in putting down the Fenian difficulties, had been returned to the command; that although the number of companies had been increased the numerical strength of the command was very much the same, growing out of an order reducing the artillery and infantry companies from the maximum of the war establishment to the minimum of the peace establishment. The President said, "I do not refer to those changes." I replied that if he would state what changes he referred to, or who made the report of the changes, perhaps I could be more explicit. He said, “I refer to recent changes, within a

day or two," or something to that effect. I told him I thought I could assure him that no changes had been made; that under a recent order issued for the government of the armies of the United States, founded upon a law of Congress, all orders had to be transmitted through General Grant to the Army, and in like manner all orders coming from General Grant to any of his subordinate officers must necessarily come, if in my department, through me; that if by chance an order had been given to any junior officer of mine it was his duty at once to report the fact. The President asked me, "What order do you refer to?" I replied, He said," I would like to see the order," and a messenger was dispatched for it. At this time a gentleman came in who I supposed had business in no way connected with the business that I had in hand, and I withdrew to the further end of the room, and while there the messenger came with the book of orders and handed it to me. As soon as the gentleman had withdrawn'I returned to the President with the book in my hand, and said I would take it as a favor if he would permit me to call his attention to that order; that it had been passed in an appropriation bill, and I thought it not unlikely had escaped his attention. He took the order and read it, and observed, "This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, that makes me Commander-in-Chief, or with the terms of your commission."

Mr. HOWARD. Repeat his language, if you please.

The WITNESS. I cannot repeat it any nearer than I am now doing.

Mr. CONKLING. Repeat your last answer louder, so that we may hear.

Mr. JOHNSON. What he said. The WITNESS. What who said, the President or me?

Mr. HOWARD. The President.

The WITNESS. He said, "This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, which makes me Commander-in-Chief, or with the terms of your commission." Í replied, "That is the order which you have approved and issued to the Army for our government," or something to that effect. I cannot recollect the exact words, nor do I intend to quote the exact words, of the President. He said, "Am I to understand that the President of the United States cannot give an order except through the General of the Army," or "General Grant?" I said, in reply, that that was my impression, that that was the opinion that the Army entertained, and I thought upon that subject they were a unit. I also said, "I think it is fair, Mr. President, to say to you that when this order came out there was considerable discussion on the subject as to what were the obligations of an officer under that order, and some eminent lawyers were consulted-I myself consulted one-and the opinion was given to me decidedly and unequivocally that we were bound by the order, constitutional or not constitutional." The President observed that the object of the law was evident.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Before you pass from that, did you state to him who the lawyers were who had been consulted?

Answer. Yes.

Question. What did you state on that subject?

Answer. Perhaps, in reference to that, a part of my statement was not altogether correct. In regard to myself, I consulted Mr. Robert J. Walker.

Question. State what you said to him, whether correct or otherwise?

Answer. I will state it. I stated that I had consulted Mr. Robert J. Walker, in reply to his question as to whom it was I had consulted; and I understood other officers had consulted Mr. REVERDY JOHNSON.

Question. Did you say to him what opinion had been reported from those consultations?

Answer. I stated before that the lawyer that I consulted stated to me that we were bound by it undoubtedly; and I understood from

some officers, who I supposed had consulted Mr. JOHNSON, that he was of the same opinion. Question. What did the President reply to that?

Answer. The President said "the object of the law is evident.' There the conversation ended by my thanking him for the courtesy with which he had allowed me to express my own opinion.

Question. Did you then withdraw?

Answer. I then withdrew.

Question. Did you see General Thomas that morning?

Answer. I did not, that I recollect. I have no recollection of it.

Question. (Handing a paper to the witness.) State whether that is an official copy of the order to which you referred?

Answer. No, sir. It is only a part of the order. The order which I had in my hand, and which I have in my office, has the appropriation bill in front of it. That is, perhaps, another form issued from the Adjutant General's office; but it is the substance of one part of the order.

Question. Is it so far as it concerns this matter?

Answer. So far as concerns this matter it is the same order; but it is not the same copy, or, more properly, the same edition. There are two editions of the order, one published with the appropriation bill, and this is a section of the appropriation bill, and probably has been published as a detached section.

Question. Is that an official copy?

Answer. Yes, sir; that is an official copy. Question. This, I observe, is headed "Order No. 15." I observed you said "No. 17." Do you refer to the same or different orders?

Answer. I refer to the same order, and I think Order No. 17 is the one containing the appropriation bill, the one I referred to, and the one I had in my hand, and, I think, the one that is on file in my office. That made the confusion in the first place. I may have said Order 15 or 17, but Order No. 17 embraces, I think, all the appropriation bill, and is the full order.

Question. This is No. 15, and covers the second and third sections of that act?

Answer. The sections are the same. Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the counsel for the respondent.) I propose to put this paper in evidence, if you do not object.

Mr. EVARTS. Allow us to look at it. [The paper was handed to the counsel and examined.]

Mr. STANBERY. We have no objection. Mr. EVARTS. We will treat that as equiv alent to Order No. 17, unless some difference should appear.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. There is no dif ference, I believe, and it is the same as is set out in the answer. Do you desire to have it read?

Mr. JOHNSON. The Manager will read it, if he pleases.

Mr. Manager BUTLER read as follows:

[General Orders, No. 15.]

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the headquarters of the General of the Army of the United States shall be at the city of Washington, and all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the President or Secretary of War shall be issued through the General of the Army, and, in caso of his inability, through the next in rank. The General of the Army shall not be removed, suspended, or relieved from command, or assigned to duty elsewhere than at said headquarters, except at his own request, without the previous approval of the Senate; and any orders or instructions relating to military operations issued contrary to the requirements of this section shall be null and void; and any officer who shall issue orders or instructions contrary to the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in office; and any officer of the Army

"SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the officers of the Army and Navy and of the Freedmen's Bureau to prohibit and prevent whipping or maiming of the person as a punishment for any crime, misdemeanor, or offense, by any pretended civil or military authority in any State lately in rebellion until the civil government of such State shall have been restored, and shall have been recognized by the Congress of the United States.

"SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That all military forces now organized or in service in either of the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, be forthwith disbanded, and that the further organization, arming, or calling into service of the said militia forces, or any part thereof, is hereby prohibited, under any circumstances whatever, until the same shall be authorized by Congress.'

Question. I see this document contains no construction of that act, but simply gives the act for their information; is that so? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Upon reading the act, then, a discussion arose among the officers of the Army? Answer. Yes.

Question. As to its meaning, or what?

Answer. A discussion with a view of ascertaining what an officer's obligations were under that act.

Question. You had received no instructions from the War Department or elsewhere except what are contained in that document itself?" Answer. None whatever.

Question. It left you, then, to construe the

act?

stitutional or unconstitutional to send orders in that way?

Answer. The question of constitution was not raised; it was only a question of whether we were bound by that order.

Question. I understood you to say that the answer was constitutional or not constitu tional," in your response to General BUTLER.

Answer. I made a mistake, then. The question was whether we were bound by it, and I should like to correct it.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. You may do so. Mr. STANBERY. Certainly. [To the witness.] You said in your former answer that the advice was that you were bound to obey it whether it was constitutional or not.

Answer. Until it was decided. We had no right to judge of the Constitution-the officers had not.

Question. That was the advice you got? Answer. Yes, sir. Question. Until it was decided-decided by whom and where?

Answer. By the Supreme Court; and not only that, after the decision is made it must be promulgated to us in orders as null and void, and no longer operating.

Question. When you said to the President that he had approved something, did you speak in reference to that Order No. 17 which contained the whole of the act?

Answer. The act is marked "approved." The order contains nothing but the act, not a word besides.

Question. Then the approval that you referred to was to the act?

Answer. I consider the act and the order the same.

Question. But the word "approved" you speak of was to the act?

Answer. Of course; but as far as we are concerned in the Army the act and the order are the same thing.

Mr. Manager WILSON. Mr. President, we now offer a duly authenticated copy of General Emory's commission:

The President of the United States:

To all who shall see these presents, greeting: Know ye, that I do hereby confer on William H. Emory, of the Army of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the rank of major general by brevet in said Army, to rank as such from the 13th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1865, for gallant and meritorious services at the battle of Cedar creek, Virginia; and I do strictly charge and require al officers and soldiers to obey and respect him accordingly; and he is to observe and follow such orders and directions from time to time as he shall receive from me or the future President of the United States of America, and other officers set over him according to law, and the rules and discipline of war. This commission to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being,

Given under my hand at the city of Washington, this 17th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1866, and of the ninety-first year of the independence of the United States. ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Seal of the War Department.]
By the President:

EDWIN M. STANTON,
Secretary of War.

This is duly certified from the Department, the certificate being as follows:

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 24, 1868.

It appears from the records of this office that the annexed document is a true copy of the original commission issued to Brevet Major General W. H. Emory, United States Army, from this office.

E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant General.

Be it known that E. D. Townsend, who has signed the foregoing certificate, is an assistant adjutant general of the Army of the United States, and that to his attestation as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given.

E. D. TOWNSEND,

Assistant Adjutant General.

We now offer the order of the President, under which General Thomas resumed his duties as Adjutant General of the Army of the United States:

EXECUTIVE MANSION. WASHINGTON, D. C., February 13, 1868. GENERAL: I desire that Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas resume his duties as Adjutant General of the Army of the United States. Respectfully, yours, ANDREW JOHNSON. General U. S. GRANT, commanding Army of the United States, Washington, D. C.

It is the original order.

I now offer the original letter of General Grant requesting the President to put in writing a verbal order which he had given him prior to the date of this letter. Both the letter and the indorsement by the President are original.

Mr. STANBERY. Allow us to look at it. Mr. Manager WILSON. Certainly. [The letter was handed to counsel, and after examination returned to the Managers.] Mr. Manager WILSON. I will read it:

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 24, 1868. SIR: I have the honor very respectfully to request to have in writing the order which the President gave me verbally on Sunday, the 19th instant, to disregard the orders of Hon. E. M. Stanton as Sceretary of War until I knew from the President himself that they were his orders.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, U. S. GRANT, General. His Excellency A. JOHNSON, President of the United States. Upon which letter is the following indorse

ment:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 29, 1888. ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States. In reply to request of General Grant of the 24th January, 1868, the President does so, as follows:

As requested in this communication, General Grant is instructed 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. ANDREW JOHNSON.

Mr. CAMERON. I should be glad to have that read by the Clerk.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will

read the order.

The Secretary read the letter of General Grant and the indorsement last read by Mr. Manager WILSON.

Mr. Manager WILSON. The next document which we produce is a letter written by the President of the United States to General Grant of date of February 10, 1868. It is the original letter, and I send it to counsel that they may examine it.

[The letter was handed to the counsel for the President, and examined by them.]

Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Chief Justice, it appears that this is a letter purporting to be a part of a correspondence between General Grant and the President. I ask the honorable Managers whether it is their intention to produce the entire correspondence?

Mr. Manager WILSON. It is not our intention to produce anything beyond this letter which we now offer.

Mr. STANBERY. No other part of the correspondence but this letter?

Mr. Manager WILSON. That is all we propose now to offer.

[The letter was returned to the Managers.] Mr. STANBERY. We wish the honorable Managers to state what is the purpose of introducing this letter? What is the object? What is the relevancy? What does it relate to? Mr. Manager WILSON. I may state that the special object we have in view in the introduction of this letter is to show the President's own declaration of his intent to prevent the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, resuming the duties of the office of Secretary of War, notwithstanding the action of the Senate on his case, and the requirement of the tenure-ofoffice bill. Do you desire it read?

Mr. STANBERY. Certainly, if it is to come in.

Mr. Manager WILSON. I ask the Secretary to read it.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read it.

The Secretary read the letter, as follows:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 10, 1868. GENERAL: The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3d instant would seem to preclude any reply on my part; but the manner in which publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter forms a part, and the grave questions which are involved, induce me to take this mode of giving, as a proper sequel to the communications which have passed between us, the statements of the five members of the Cabinet who were present on the occasion of our conversation on the 14th ultimo. Copies of the letters which they have addressed to me upon the subject are accordingly herewith inclosed.

Yous, eak of my letter of the 31st ultimo as a reiteration of the many and gross misrepresentations" contained in certain newspaper articles, and reassert the correctness of the statements contained in your communication of the 28th ultimo; addingand here I give your own words-anything in yours in reply to it to the contrary notwithstanding."

When a controversy upon matters of fact reaches the point to which this has been brought, further assertion or denial between the immediate parties should cease, especially where, upon either side, it loses the character of the respectful discussion which is required by the relations in which the parties stand to each other, and degenerates in tone and temper. In such a case, if there is nothing to rely upon but the opposing statements, conclusions must be drawn from those statements alone, and from whatever intrinsic probabilities they afford in favor of or against either of the parties. I should not shrink from this test in this controversy; but, fortunately, it is not left to this test alone. There were five Cabinet officers present at the conversation, the detail of which, in my letter of the 28th ultimo, you allow yourself to say, contains "many and gross misrepresentations." These gentlemen heard that conversation and have read my statement. They speak for themselves, and I leave the proof without a word of comment.

I deem it proper, before concluding this communication, to notice some of the statements contained in your letter.

You say that a performance of the promises alleged to have been made by you to the President "would have involved a resistance to law, and an inconsistency with the whole history of my connection with the suspension of Mr. Stanton." You then state that you had fears the President would, on the removal of Mr. Stanton, appoint some one in his place who would embarrass the Army in carrying out the reconstruction acts, and add:

It was to prevent such an appointment that I accepted the office of Secretary of War ad interim, and not for the purpose of enabling you to get rid of Mr. Stanton by my withholding it from him in opposition to law, or, not doing so myself, surrendering it to one who would, as the statements and assumptions in your communication plainly indicate was sought." First of all, you here admit that from the very beginning of what you term "the whole history" of your connection with Mr. Stanton's suspension, you intended to circumvent the President. It was to carry out that intent that you accepted the appointment. This was in your mind at the time of your acceptance. It was not, then, in obedience to the order of your superior, as has heretofore been supposed, that you assumed the duties of the office. You knew it was the President's purpose to prevent Mr. Stanton from resuming the office of Secretary of War; and you intended to defeat that purpose. You accepted the office, not in the interest of the President, but of Mr. Stanton. If this purpose, so entertained by you, had been confined to yourself; if, when accepting the office, you had done so with a mental reservation to frustrate the President, it would have been a tacit deception. In the ethics of some persons such a course is allowable. But you cannot stand even upon that questionable ground. The "history" of your connection with this transaction, as written by yourself, places you in a different predicament, and shows that you not only concealed your design from the Presi dent, but induced him to suppose that you would carry out his purpose to keep Mr. Stanton out of office, by retaining it yourself after an attempted restoration by the Senate, so as to require Mr. Stanton to establish his right by judicial decision.

SUPPLEMENT-6.

I now give that part of this "history," as written by yourself in your letter of the 28th ultimo:

Some time after I assumed the duties of Secretary of War ad interim, the President asked me my views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have to pursue. in case the Senate should not concur in his suspension, to obtain possession of his office. My reply was, in substance, that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts to reinstate him, illustrating my position by citing the ground I had taken in the case of the Baltimore police commissioners."

Now, at that time, as you admit in your letter of the 3d instant, you held the office for the very object of defeating an appeal to the courts. In that letter you say that in accepting the office one motive was to prevent the President from appointing some other person who would retain possession, and thus make judicial proceedings necessary. You knew the President was unwilling to trust the office with any one who would not, by holding it, compel Mr. Stanton to resort to the courts. You perfectly understood that in this interview, some time" after you accepted the office, the President, not content with your silence, desired an expression of your views, and you answered him that Mr. Stanton "would have to appeal to the courts."

If the President had reposed confidence before he knew your views, and that confidence had been violated, it might have been said he made a mistake; but a violation of confidence reposed after that conversation was no mistake of his, nor of yours. It is the fact only that needs be stated, that at the date of this conversation you did not intend to hold the office with the purpose of forcing Mr. Stanton into court, but did hold it then, and had accepted it, to prevent that course from being carried out. In other words, you said to the President, "that is the proper course," and you said to yourself, "I have accepted this office and now hold it to defeat that course." The excuse you make in a subsequent paragraph of that letter of the 28th ultimo, that afterward 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 letter 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, tendered 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 authority 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 disregard orders from Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War until you "knew from the President himself that they were his orders." 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 President is responsible, and he should therefore know and understand what they are before giving such "direction." Mr. Stanton states, in his letter of the 4th instant, which accompanies the published correspondence, that he has had no correspondence with the President since the 12th of August last;" and he further says that since he resumed the duties of the oflice 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 President with my knowledge, and I have received no orders from him."

as

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 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 informed 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 Department is not countermanded, it will be satisfactory evidence to me that any orders issued from the War Department by direction of the President are authorized 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 Department to issue

orders in the name of the President without his direc tion, 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 receive 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 oboy? 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 a deference to the subordinate.

Without further comment upon the insubordinate attitude which you have assumed, I am at 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.

[Several Senators had gone out during the reading of the letter.]

Mr. Manager WILSON. We now

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Before the honorable Manager proceeds, he will wait until the seats of the Senators are filled. The Sergeantat-Arms will inform Senators that their presence is wanted.

Several Senators having returned to the Chamber,

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The honorable Manager may proceed.

Mr. STANBERY. I ask the honorable Manager if he is done reading all that belongs to that letter. In that letter certain documents are referred to as explanatory of it. Do you propose to read those papers?

Mr. Manager WILSON. All has been read which we propose to offer.

Mr. STANBERY. You do not, therefore, propose to offer the papers, copies of which accompany that letter and which are referred to in it?

Mr. Manager WILSON. I have stated to the counsel that we offered a letter of the President of the United States. It has been read. We proposed to offer the letter; we have of fered it; and it is in evidence.

Mr. STANBERY. You do not now propose to offer

Mr. Manager WILSON. The entire letter has been read.

Mr. STANBERY. We do not understand that. We ask that the documents referred to be read with that letter. They accompany it, and are referred to in it and explain it.

Mr. Manager WILSON. We offer nothing, sir, but the letter.

Mr. STANBERY. Then we object to it. Mr. Manager WILSON. If the counsel have anything to offer when they come to present their case we will then consider it.

Mr. STANBERY. We ask it as a part of the letter. Suppose there were a postscript there, would you not read it?

Mr. Manager WILSON. There is no postscript. That settles it. But there is matter

Mr. STANBERY. added to it.

Mr. Manager WILSON. There is no matter added to it. The letter is there as written by the President.

Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Chief Justice, we will take a ruling upon that point. On the first page of the letter the matter is referred to, which I will read:

"GENERAL: The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3d instant would seem to preclude any reply on my part; but the manner in which publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter forms a part and the grave questions which are involved induce me to take this mode of giving, as a proper sequel to the communications which have passed between us, the statements of the five members of the Cabinet who were present on the occasion of our conversation on the 14th ultimo. Copies of the letters which they have addressed to me upon the subject are accordingly herewith inclosed."