The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-03-25


sons, TO use intimidation or threats to hinder
or prevent the said Stan ton from holding the
said Office of Secretary for the Depart rtment OF
War, nor did this respondent at any time
command or advise the said Thomas, or any
other person or persons, to resort to or use
either threats or intimidation for that pur-
pose. The only means in the con templat tiou
or purpose OF respondent to be used are set
forth fully in the said orders Of February 81
! the first addressed to Mr.. Stanton, and the Sc
! cond TO the said Thomas. By the first order
| the respondent notified Mr.. Stanton that he
was removed from the said Office, and that his
| functions as Secretary for the Department OF
/ War were 10 terminate upon the receipt Of
| that order, and he also thereby notified the
| said Stanton that the said Thomas had been
authorized TO act rs Secretary for the Depart
| ment of War al inte1im and ordered the said
| Stanton 10 transfer to him all the records,
| books papers, and other public property, in
| his custody and charge and by the second or
der this respondent notified the said Thomas
| of the removal from office Of the said Stanton,
| and authorized him 10 act as Secretary for the
Department of War nd interim, and directed
| him 10 Immediately enter upon the discharge Of
| the duties pertaining TO that office, and 10 re-
cciye the transfer of all the records, books pa
| pers and other pnblic property from Dir. Stan
| ton, then in his custody and charge. Respond
| ent gave no instructions 10 the said Thomas 10
| use intimidation or threats 10 enforce obe-
| dience 10 these orders. He gave him no au tho
rity 10 call in the aid of the military or any
| other force to enable him TO obtain possession
of the Office, of the books, papers, records,
| or property, thereof. The only agency reSorted
| to- or intended 10 be resorted to, was by means
| OF the said executive orders requiring ODE
dience. But the Secretary for the Depart
meut Of War refused TO obey these orders, and
| still holds undisturbed possession and custody
| of that Depar tment, and of the records, books,
papers, and other public property, therein.
espoudent further states that i'll eXecu ton
of the orders so by this respondent given to
the said Thomas he, the said Thomas, pro-
cecded in Il peaceful manner TO demand of the
said Stanton 4 surrender TO him of the public
property in the said Department, and 10 va
cat. the possession of the same and to allO w
him, the said Thomas, peaceably to exercise
the duties devolved upon him BY the authority
OF the President. That, as this respondent
has been informed and believes, the said Stan
ton perremptorily refused obedience to the
orders 50 issued. Upon such refusal no force
or threat of force was used by the said
Thomas, b. authority of the President or
Otherwise, 10 enforce obedience, either then
OF atany SubSeq uent time.
This respondent doth here except 10 tn" Suf-
iicicncy OF the allegations contained in said
fourth article and states, for ground OF eX-
CCptlou, that II IS not stated that there ";in
any agreement between this respondent and
| the said Thomas, or any other person or per
| sons to use intimidation and threats, nor is
| there any allegation rs TO the nature OF >ald
| intimidation and threats, or that there was
| or that any step was taken, or agreed TO be-
| taken, to carry them int execution and that
the allegation in said article that the IN tent OF
said conspiracy was 10 use intimidation anu
| threats is wholly insufficient, inaSmuch aS IL
| is not alleged that the said intent formed the
basis or became part of any agreement be-
| tween the said alleged conSpiraturs: and fur
| thcrmore, that there IS no allegation OF amy
conspiracy or agreement 10 use INTIMIDATION
| or threats.
ANSWER To ARTICLE V.
| And for answer To the said jim article this
| respondent denies that ON the said list day OF
! February, 1s0N, or 1t any other time or times
| in the same year before the said 2d day OF
March, lo6o, or 1T amy prior or subSequen
time 1T Washington aforesaid, or at any other
| place, this respondent did unlaWinIy CON
spire with the said Thomas, or with any other
| person or persons, to prevent or hinder the
| pXecut lion OF the said act entitled - An act
| regulaliug the tenure of certain civil offices,
| or that, il pursuance of said alleged conspi-
racy, he did unlawtuliy attempt 10 prevent
| the said Edwin NJ. Stanton from holding said
| oicc OF Secretary Tor the Department OF war,
| or that he did thereby commit or that he was
| thereby guilty OF Il high misdelneanor III oiice.
| Respondent protesting that said stan on was
| not then and there Secretary tor the Depart
mrnt OF War, begs leave 10 refer 10 his ans wei
| riyen to the fourth article, and 10 his answer
| given 10 the first article, as 10 his intent and
| purpose in issuing the orders for the removal
OF Mr. Stanton and the authority given Il
The said InontSr ana PTayS equll oeu"iil
| therefrUm rs il the same We're here again re-
peated and fully set forth.
And this respondent eXceptS to the sum
cheney OF the SAID GfHt article, and states his
grouud for such exception, that it Is not
| alleged BY what means or by what agreement
| the said alleged conspiracy was formed OF
| agreed TO be carried out, or III what way the
same was attempted 10 be carried out, or what
| were the acts done in pursuance thereof.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE VI.
| And for answer 10 The said Sirh article this
respondent denies that. on the said 2lSt day OF
| February, 1S6S, at Washington aforesaid or ~
any other time or place, he did unlaWfully
| cunSpirc with the said Thomas, by force, tC
SEIZE, take, or possess the property OF the
| United States in the Department OF War, con-
| irary 10 the provisions OF the said acts re-
crrred 10 III the said article, or either of them
| or with intent 10 violate either of them. Re-
>punGcnt protesting that said Stanton was not
! then aud there Secretary FOR the Department
| of War, not only denies the said conspiracy ~
charged, but also denies any unlawful intent
| in reference TO the custody and charge OF the
| propertv OF the United States i'll the said De-
partment Of War, and again refers TO his for
mer answers for !: full statement OF his intent
| and purpose in the premises.
| ANSWER To ARTICLE VII.
| And Tor answer 10 the sLid ssr,"tA article
| respondent denies that OF the said 2lSt day Oi
February, 1865, 1T Washington aforesaid orat
| ANY other time and place, he did unEtwiuliy
| cunspire with the said Thomas with intent
| uulaWfullv 10 >"Za, take, or possess the pro
| perry OF the | nitcd States Ill the Department
| Of War with intent to violate or disregard
the said acl in the s;lid Sece,M article referred
| TO, or that hn did then and there commit Il
| high mi>deme;tnor in Office. Respondent pro
| testing that the said Stanton was not then
| and there Secretary for the Department OF
| War, again refers to his former answers, III so
| far us they are applicable, 10 Sho" the lnlen!
| with which he proceeded III the premises, ;tho
| prays equal benefit thereirom Us II The same
| were here again fully repeated. ReSponden,
| further takes exception 10 the Sulllcency Ol
| The allegations OF this articeas TO the conspl-
| racy alleged upon the same grounds rs stated
| in the exception set forth i'll his answer Io
| said article fourth.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE VIII.
| And for answer 10 the said eigiM article
| this respondent denies that on the 2lst day o!
| February, ls0S, 1T Washington aforesaid oi
1T any other time and place, he did issue 'tnd
deliver TO The said Thomas the said letter oi
authority set forth in the said e'ghh article
| with the intent unlawiuliy 10 control me as
| burScmentS Of the money appropriated Tor liit
military service and for the Department ol
| War. This respondent, protesting that thert
yv;ts Il vacancy in the office OF Secretary tol
| the Department of War, admits that lie ui1
| issue the said letter OF authority, ana he ue
ni.s that me same was with any ullit"lu
intent " haterer, either to violate tn" Cons u
| tuition OF the United States or any act ol Coli
greSs. On the contrary, this respondent agali
| aiiirmS that his sole intent was 10 vlnuIt'1e
his authority as President OF the uHile'
| States, and by peaceful means 10 orlhs III
question OF the right OF the said stanton u
continue 10 hold the said Office OF Secretary
| War To n final decision before the supreme
| Court Of the United States, rs has peeH mere
| inbefore set forth, and he prayS the sam
benefit from his answer III the premises aS
| the same were here again repeated III leh5 II
ANSWER TO ARTICLE lX.
And for answer 10 the said aiRM aFtltle l"
res poudcul states shat on the StIu III uiS y
| February, leOs, the following hote "'S M az.