athy with Congress. They remained only long enough to see that the
difference 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 the
District of Columbia and the 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 between all the
members of the Cabinet and myself, except Mr. Stanton. He 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 a head of Department should have no other opinions
than those of the President. He has the same right, in the conscientious
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 a head of 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 the official relation. This in
the past history of the Government has always been the rule, and it is a
wise one, for such differences of opinion among its members must impair
the efficiency of any Administration.

I have now referred to the general grounds upon which the withdrawal
or Mr. Stanton from my Administration seemed to me to be proper and
necessary, but I can not omit to state a special ground, which, if it
stood alone, would vindicate my action.

The sanguinary riot which occurred in the city of New Orleans on the
30th of August, 1866, justly aroused public indignation and public
inquiry, not only as to those who were engaged in it, but as to those
who, more or less remotely, might be held to responsibility for its
occurrence. I need not remind the Senate of the effort made to fix that
respo