New-York tribune., 1868-03-24
PRICE FOUR CENTS.


ANSWER TO ARTICLE VII.-And for answer 10 the SAID
seventh article respondent the said 2s day
OF February 1863 at Washington aforesaid OF at any
other time and place. he did unawuy conspre with tho
said Thomas with intent uIlawfully 70 seize, take or
possess the property OF the United States in the Depart
meut OF War; with intent violate disregard the said
act in the seventh article referred TO- or that he did then
and there commit high msdemeanor In Office Respond
ent protesting that the said stanton was not then and
there Secretary the Department OF War; again rees
to his former answers so far as they are appncaOe 10
show the intent with which he proceeded nfhe premises
and prays equal benefit therefrom as If the same were
here again fully repeated Respondent further takes e1
cepon the suceney Of the allegations OF this article
10 the conspiracy alleged upon the same ground az
stated in the exception forth in his answer to SAID
article fourth.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE Willard, for TO the
said eighth article this respondent denies that on tho
day February ls6s Washington Aforesaid or at
any other time and place. he did issue aud deliver TO the
said Thomas the said letter Of authority Get forth In the
said eighth article, with the intent uniawfuy to control
the disbursements of money appropriated for the mill
tary service and for the Department Of War. This
respondent protesting that there was a vacancy in the
said office OF Secretary for the Department Of War,
admits that did issue the said letter Of authority and
he denies that the same was with any unlawful intent
whatever either violate the Constitution OF the United
States any act Of Congress- on the contrary, THIS
respondent again airms his sole intent 10 vim
by peaceful bring the question Of the right
OF e said Stanton to continue to hold the said Office OF
Secretary of War TO final decision before the supreme
Court OF the United States las been herenbefore set
FORTH and he prays the benefit from his answer In
premises If the here again repeated az
! length
ANSWER TO ARTICLE IX--And for answer to the said
ninth article the respondent that the said 22d
day OF February 1863 the following note wis addressed
TO the SAID Emory by the Private Secretary OF re-
spondeut'
| WASHINGTON d. G., Feb ~ 1868. 5
GENERAL: The President directs TO say that ne VIII
be pleased to have yon call upon hm as early as pfae
'A''' WILLIAM G. MOORE, U. s.A
Gen Emory called at the Executive mansion according
to request The object of respondent was to be ad
vsed by Gen. Emory as Commander Of the Department.
of Washington what changes had been made in the MILL
tary affairs Of the Department Respondent had been
Informed that various changes had been made, which In
no wise had been brought his notice orrepored to him
from the Department Of War; or from any other quarter
and desired ascertain the facts After the said Emory
had explained in detail the changes which had taken
place said Emory called the attention OF respondent TO
General Order which he referred 70, and which the
respondent then sent for when t was produced IL as
follows:
WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTAST.G GENERALS OFFICE
WAsHISGToN, ID. O.. March IA, 1867. 5
GENERAL ORDER, No 1.-THE following Acts OF Con-
gress published for the information and governments
a. Public, so. ss)
sSdids june % s AVID for paPcse;
.rs Tie a aS % sal BE- a. the c d wsSastos and al
1 e militia. ,o5Ss gsTSTi ss ia sS,T y sHs
stability through the next IN rank The General oi ne
signed duty than said heaeqeaI.sr: except at ais re-
guest SoG: the y.y ' ss 'pG a % otsss s ad
the requirements Of tbs sSe'.a & na d es 5s,g,to, S a.,
contrary provisions Of h section hall be deemed guy o. nj.
1s or obey Sny orders q \. actions d contrary
liable to mprsoHmet for than
S1. DS1 S'S's @ifh 'Hs5' & b 30 oTsr 3 he Secretary War
'0~''-i Assistant Al aar.Gsneral A. G. o. No H.
Gen. Emory not only called the attention Of respondent
to this ORDER but TO the fact that it was in conformity
with section contained IN appropriation act passed
by Congress Respondent after reading the Order Oh
served:
This is not accordance with the Constitution Of the
United States, which makes me COMMANDMENTS Chief Oh
the Army and Navy or OF the language OF the eonmsson
which you hold"
Gen. Emory then stated that this order had met re-
spondent's approval Respondent then said, In sub
| stance:
Am 10 understand that the President OF the United
States give order but through the Generan-
Chief or Gen. Grant,
Gen Emory again reiterated the statement that 1t had
met respondents approval and that 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 not very evident. referring 20 the clause in the
Appropriation upon which the order purported to be
based. This, according tJ respondents recollection was
the substance Of the conversation with Gen. Emory
Respondent denies that any allegation in the said
article of any instructions declaration given TO the said
Emory then or at any other time contrary to or in
addition TO what is hereinbefOre set forth, true.
Respondent that in said conversation with Emory
had any other intent than 10 express the opinions then
given the said Emory did he then or at any time,
request order the said Emory 20 disobey any law or
any order issued in conformity with any law, Or intend
TO offer any nducemen to TO the sad Emory % violate
any law What this respondent then said 10 Gen. Emory
was simply the expression Of opinion which he then
fully believed be sound and which he yet believes to
So and that s that by the express provisions OF the
Constitution this respondent President is made the
Commander inCef of the Armies of the United states,
and as such he he respected and that his orders,
whether issued through the War Department through
the Generalnhef by other channel Of communi-
cation entitled 10 respect and obedience; ana that
such constitutional power cannot be taken from hlm by
virtue OF any Of Congress Respondent does therefore
deny that by the expression Of such opinion he did COM
nit and was guilty high misdemeanor in Office; and
this respondent doth further say that the said article
laws no foundation whatever for the conclusion stated in
the said article the respondent by Of the ale
cations therein contained, guilty of high msde-
meanor office In reference 10 the statement made by
Gen. Emory that this respondent had approved OF said
Act of Congress containing the section referred to- the
respondent admits that his was given to
said act bnt accompanied the same, ny the Following
message addressed aud sent with the Act to the House
OF Representatives in which House the said Act orig
mated. and from which 1t came 10 respondent:
10 he H0aSe of Rcpresentttircs:
The act entitled making appropriations for the
support OF the army for the year ending June 90 1905
~ a Tor other purpoes contains provisions 10 which
must call attention These provisions are contained In
the second section which IN certain cases virtually de-
prye the President OF his constitutional functions as
Chief OF the army and in the sixth sec