* * * * * * *

“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 case 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 who shall transmit, convey, or obey any orders or instructions so issued contrary to the provisions of this section, knowing that such orders were so issued, shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than twenty years upon conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction.

* * * * * * *

  “Approved, March 2, 1867.”

* * * * * * *

  By order of the Secretary of War: 

  E.D.  TOWNSEND,

  Assistant Adjutant-General.

  Official: 

-------- --------,

  Assistant Adjutant-General.

General Emory not only called the attention of respondent to this order, but to the fact that it was in conformity with a section contained in an appropriation act passed by Congress.  Respondent, after reading the order, observed: 

This is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, which makes me Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, or of the language of the commission which you hold.

General Emory then stated that this order had met the respondent’s approval.  Respondent then said in reply, in substance: 

  Am I to understand that the President of the United States can not give
  an order but through the General in Chief, or General Grant?

General Emory again reiterated the statement that it had met respondent’s approval, and that it was the opinion of some of the leading lawyers of the country that this order was constitutional.  With some further conversation, respondent then inquired the names of the lawyers who had given the opinion, and he mentioned the names of two.  Respondent then said that the object of the law was very evident, referring to the clause in the appropriation act upon which the order purported to be based.  This, according to respondent’s recollection, was the substance of the conversation had with General Emory.