No one regrets more than myself that General Baird’s request was not brought to my notice.  It is clear from his dispatch and letter that if the Secretary of War had given him proper instructions the riot which arose on the assembling of the convention would have been averted.

There may be those ready to say that I would have given no instructions even if the dispatch had reached me in time, but all must admit that I ought to have had the opportunity.

The following is the testimony given by Mr. Stanton before the impeachment investigation committee as to this dispatch: 

  Q. Referring to the dispatch of the 28th of July by General Baird, I ask
  you whether that dispatch on its receipt was communicated?

A. I received that dispatch on Sunday forenoon.  I examined it carefully, and considered the question presented.  I did not see that I could give any instructions different from the line of action which General Baird proposed, and made no answer to the dispatch.

  Q. I see it stated that this was received at 10.20 p.m.  Was that the
  hour at which it was received by you?

A. That is the date of its reception in the telegraph office Saturday night.  I received it on Sunday forenoon at my residence.  A copy of the dispatch was furnished to the President several days afterwards, along with all the other dispatches and communications on that subject, but it was not furnished by me before that time.  I suppose it may have been ten or fifteen days afterwards.

  Q. The President himself being in correspondence with those parties upon
  the same subject, would it not have been proper to have advised him of
  the reception of that dispatch?

  A. I know nothing about his correspondence, and know nothing about any
  correspondence except this one dispatch.  We had intelligence of the riot
  on Thursday morning.  The riot had taken place on Monday.

It is a difficult matter to define all the relations which exist between the heads of Departments and the President.  The legal relations are well enough defined.  The Constitution places these officers in the relation of his advisers when he calls upon them for advice.  The acts of Congress go further.  Take, for example, the act of 1789 creating the War Department.  It provides that—­

There shall be a principal officer therein to be called the Secretary for the Department of War, who shall perform and execute such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on or intrusted to him by the President of the United States; and, furthermore, the said principal officer shall conduct the business of the said Department in such manner as the President of the United States shall from time to time order and instruct.

Provision is also made for the appointment of an inferior officer by the head of the Department, to be called the chief clerk, “who, whenever said principal officer shall be removed from office by the President of the United States,” shall have the charge and custody of the books, records, and papers of the Department.