The resignation of Secretary Seddon--a card from the Virginia Congressional delegation.
We gave yesterday the correspondence between President Davis and ex-Secretary James A. Seddon with reference to the resignation of the latter. To-day we give a card, put forth by the Virginia delegation in Congress, about the same matter:
To the public:
It is with profound regret that the members of the delegation in Congress from the State of Virginia find themselves obliged to make a public statement respecting their proceedings on a late occasion. But the reflections upon their conduct, conveyed in a correspondence between His Excellency the President and the Hon. James A. Seddon, late Secretary of War, and the publication of that correspondence, render the statement necessary.At the beginning of the present year, the Confederacy was thought by many to be in extraordinary danger in consequence of a series of misfortunes. The public spirit was depressed. Apprehensions for the public safety were increased by a belief that our misfortunes were partly the result of mal-administration. Prompt, energetic and judicious measures appeared to be necessary for the restoration of the public confidence. After mature consideration and consultation with others, the members of this delegation concluded that, among the most important of such measures, would be a general reconstruction of the Cabinet.
A meeting of the delegation was held about the middle of January, in which certain public affairs, peculiarly affecting the safety of Virginia, were considered. In the same meeting, after a frank interchange of views, it was resolved that the opinion of the delegation respecting a change of the Cabinet should be made known to the President as the advice of friends.
A member (the Speaker of the House) was deputed to communicate the advice in the most friendly, respectful and confidential manner to the President, with suitable explanations of the motives and views of the delegation. He was authorized to communicate also with any of the heads of departments; but otherwise the proceedings were to be regarded as confidential. The communication was accordingly made to the President, in person and by letter, and he received it, as we supposed, in the same spirit of patriotism, candor and friendship which had prompted the action of the delegation.
The advice thus tendered by the delegation was, that a general reconstruction of the Cabinet was demanded by public sentiment, and was necessary for the restoration of public confidence. It was given as an opinion of a delegation friendly to the Administration. The decision of the matter was, of course, left to the President, with whom it constitutionally rested.
When the President had previously invited this delegation to consult with him, we received with satisfaction his advice respecting legislative business, and we had no reason to suppose that, whenever we should deem it our duty to offer him counsel respecting important affairs in the executive department, our advice would be resented as officious.
If we had intended to embarrass the President or the heads of departments by an appearance of constraint, we might have invited members of other delegations, known to concur with us in opinion respecting the Cabinet, to unite with us in action. We preferred to avoid such an appearance even at the hazard of rendering our advice less influential and of subjecting ourselves to misconstruction.
It can scarcely be necessary to state that the members of this delegation did not assume for themselves, or for the House of Representatives, or for Congress, a power to compel the resignation of heads of departments by any expression of opinion. They had reason to expect that some movement would be made in Congress which might bring on a collision between the legislative and executive departments, or constrain the Executive to make concessions. We desired to prevent such a movement, when we advised the President to conform the composition of his Cabinet to the prevailing sentiment in Congress and the country. We confidently hoped that such a change would, by its effects upon Congress as well as the executive department, make the action of the Government, at a critical period, more efficient for the public safety.
The delegation, in advising the President, did not discriminate among the heads of departments, whatever were our individual judgments of particular officers. This course appeared to be the best suited to all the circumstances, and, especially, to the state of public sentiment, if not required by a sound political principle. We chose to regard the Cabinet as a body of counsellors, held responsible, as a whole, to public opinion for the general course of the entire administration, besides having each a separate responsibility as head of his own department. Whatever may be the theory of our Government, it had not occurred to us before the publication of the correspondence now under consideration that, practically, a body so eminent in our political system could, through dependence on the pleasure of the President, become so insignificant that a change of the heads of departments could not alter the administrative policy of the Government in any degree. It could not be presumed that a body of statesmen in our country, filling those high places, would contribute no independent advice, information or influence to the policy of the Administration, or that they would long continue to hold office either in complete subserviency to a single mind or in defiance of the general sense of their countrymen. Of course we were aware that the President has power to dismiss them — a power fit to be exercised for the public welfare in a great crisis — and that to him belongs a controlling authority and the chief honor, as well as responsibility, of the Administration. We did not design either to abate the constitutional authority of the Presidential office or to take from our country the guiding influence of a President in whom we greatly confide, and whom we have firmly supported.
It is obvious that the general advice suggested by this delegation to the President, based on a general reason, alleging no fault and arraigning no individual — mere advice, to be adopted, applied or rejected by the President — might have been substantially accepted without excluding every particular head of a department from a new arrangement. We expected and desired that at least one exception would be made. It would not have been proper for this delegation to indicate to the President, when they volunteered counsel, the details of such arrangement; and, least of all, would it have been proper for us, as a delegation, to single out a secretary from our own State for partial action, highly as we esteemed the Virginian then in office and as much as we desired our State to be represented in the Cabinet. Misconceiving the spirit of our proceeding, our distinguished fellow-citizen, Mr. Seddon, without a general reconstruction of the Cabinet, resigned the office of Secretary of War. If we have unintentionally wounded his sensibilities, we deeply regret that such a consequence resulted from our action or from his construction of it.
In a letter accepting his resignation, the President declined to approve the propriety of his decision to resign because, he adds, "I cannot admit the existence of a power, or right, in the legislative department of the Government, or in any part or branch of it, to control the continuance in office of those 'principal officers in each of the executive departments' whose choice the Constitution has vested in the Chief Magistrate," etc. He observes that the circumstances which gave rise to Mr. Seddon's resignation are without precedent. In conceding a just and legitimate influence to enlightened public opinion, he denies "that the declaration of a State delegation, or even of one or both Houses, is entitled to be considered as the authentic expression of such opinion, or as requiring concessions from a co-ordinate department of the Government."
The public can now judge how far the discussion of such topics was relevant to our action, and how justly or wisely the publication of such a correspondence, or the spirit which pervades it, responds to the proceedings and purposes of this delegation. That the friendly advice of a delegation, or the more authentic counsel of Congress, should be repelled in such a manner, with such claims, and at such a time, is a circumstance which we deplore for the sake of our country, and, let us add, for the sake of the President. It will not provoke us to a resentful controversy.--It cannot abate our devotion to the public cause. It does not alter our principles of action. But since, by the publication of this correspondence, members of the Cabinet have (probably with their consent) been placed before the tribunal of public opinion at issue with the Virginia delegation upon the question whether they should have remained, or been retained, in office, notwithstanding the condition of our country and all the indications of public sentiment, this delegation does not recoil from that issue. Let it be decided by the country, to which we are responsible, and to which high executive officers ought to acknowledge their responsibility. Whatever else ensues, may our country be saved.
