The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-03-24

desire Of the Republicans to hurry the matter
trough. Republicans who are regarded as GER
AIN 10 vote hnally according to evidence and
law; voted against thirty days after replication.
Inc managers insist, mainly on the ground Of
public interest. that the unfortunate disagree.
nent between the two branches may be removed,
mat The trial be pushed through SO that peace
may be restored TO the country.
Logan was spokesman OF the managers to-day.
dis House style contrasted strangely with the
quiet eioquence Of the presidents counsel.
The presidents answer covers seven columns.
During the session to day Butler spologized for
naoverteDily calling The Senate Court" The
presidents counsel babitually say "Mr. Chief JUS
uce" and "Court;n the managers, "Mr. Pres
The following is the conclusion of the presi-
dents answer 10 the first article:
"And this respondent. proceeding TO answer,
specifically, each substantive allegation in the
said first article. says, be denies that the said
Stanton on the 2lst day Of February, 1868. was
lawfully in possession of the said Office of secre-
tary for the department of war. He denies that
the said Stanton, on the day last mentioned was
lawfully entitled TO hold the said office against the
viii OF the president of the United States. He
denies that the said order for the removal Of the
said Stanton was unawfaliy issued. He denies that
the said order was issued with intent TO violate
the act entitled an act TO regulate the tenure
of certain civil Offices. He deoies that the said
order was violation Of the Constitution of the
United States, or OF any Law thereof, or Of his
oath Of office. He denies that the said order vas
issued with any intent to violate the Constitution
OF the United States, or any law thereof, or this
respondents oath OF office, and he respectfully
hut earnestly insists that only was it issued by
him in the performance of what he believed to be
an official duty. but in the performance of what
this honorable court will consider was in point of
fact, an imperative official duty. And be denies
that any and all substantive matters in the said
trst article contained in manner and form. as the
same are therein stated and set forth, do by law
constitute high msdemesnor in Office within the
true intent and meaning of the Constitution of the
United States"
Answering the second article he says:
First-That at the date and delivery of said
communication there was vacancy existing in
The Office of secretary for the department of
war.
Secopd-That notwithstanding the Senate of
The United States was then in session it was law
ful and according 10 long and well established
usage 10 empower and authorize the said Thomas
10 act IS secretary OF war dd interim.
Third-1hat If the said act regulating the ten
ure OF civil Office be held TO be o valid law no
provision Of the same was violated by the issuing
Of said order or by the designation of said
Thomas to act as secretary of war dd interim.
In the answer to the third article aluding TO the
order given Thomas he denies that the same
amounts 10 an appointment and insists that ii is
ouly designation OF an officer of that depart
ment 10 act temporarily az secretary for the de-
partment of war ad int1.in until an ap ppointment
should be made.
Included in the answer to the fourth article is
the following:
This respondent states that his sole purpose
In authorizing the said Thomas to act as secretary
for the department of war dd interim was, as is
fully stated in his answer to the first article to
bring the question of the right of the said Stan
tn 10 hold said Office, Notwithstanding his sus-
pension, and Notwithstanding the said order OF re.
moval and notwithstanding the said authority
of the said Thomas TO act secretary Of war dd
interim, 10 the test of final decision by the Sn
pieme Court of the United States in the earliest
practicable mode by which the question could be
brought before that tribunal"
The president repeats the following, ia effect,
TO oil the specifications regarding his speeches:
"Bnt this respondent does not admit that the
passages therein set forth as sn extract from .
speech or address OF this respondent upon said
occasion, correctly or justly present hls speech
or address upon said occasion bat, on the con.
trary. this respondent demands and insists that il
this honorable court shall deem the said article
and the sald first specification thereof 10 contain
allegation of matter cOgnz4bie by this honorable
court as high misdemeanor In office, within the
intent and meaning Of the Consultation of the
United States, and shall receive or allow proof 10
support OF the same, that proof shall be required
TO be made OF the actual speech and address Of
this respondent On said occasion, which this
respondent denies that said article aud specI6ca-
tion contain or correctly or justly represent"
He sdds. on this subject: /" And this respond
ent, further answering says that be has always
claimed and insisted that both in his personal aud
private capacity OF citizen of the United states,
and ia the political relations of tue president of
The United States 70 the people of the United
states, whose servant. under the duties and re-
sponsibilities of the Constitution of the United
states, the president of the United States is snd
should always remain. this respondent had and
has the full right and in bis Office president OF
The United States il held to the high duty of form
ing, and on fit occasions expressing opinions OF
and concerning the legislation of Congress, pro-
posed or completed, in respect Of its wisdom. ex.
pediency. justice, worthiness objects, purp poses,
and public and political motives and tendencies,
and within and as part of such right and duty TO
form, and on ht occasions to express opinions of
end concerning the public character and conduct,
views, purposes, objects, motivesiand tendencies
of all men engaged IN the public service, as well
IN Congress as otherwise and under no other rules
or limits upon this right Of freedom of opinion and
OF freedom of speech, of responsibility for the
actual exercise of such freedom OF opinion and
freedom of speech than attend upon such rights
and their exercise on the part of all other citizens
II the United States, and the part of all their
public servants.