pecially 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 [31st[37]] 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 someone 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 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