The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-03-28

I3ut vbetber sa1d written authority amounts TO
any appointmeut or designation, this respondent
denies that in any seuse he did thereby intend %
violsfs The Constitution Of the United States, or
that be thereby intended to give said order the
character or eject Of m appointment IN consfi-
tnti0nal or legal sense Of the term.
7 He also denies that there Was no vacancy IN
sail ONCE Of secretary for the department OF war
existing at the date Of said written authority
The oaly agency resorted To-. or intended to be
resorted 70 was BY means Of the said executive
orders, requiring obedience but the secretary for
the department of war refused TO obey these
orders. and stu holds undisturbed possession aud
custody of that department. and Of the records,
books. papers. al1 other public property therein.
The respondent further states thar in the execu1
ton of the orders 80 oy this respondent given to
the said Thomas, he, re said Thomas, proceeded
In peaceable manner to demand OF the said
Stsnsou a surrender 10 hia of the public property
IN tae said department, ani to vacate the posses
sion OF the same, and to allow him. the said
Thomas, pesceably to exercise the duty dev0lved
upon him by authority Of the president.
That this respondent has bees informed, and be-
NO force. or threat. or offer was tsed by the said
Thomas by authority OF the president. or other
wise. TO enforce obedience, either thsn or at any
subsequent time.
This respondent doth here except Il the su1i-
cheney Of the allegation contained in sad fourth
II is not stated that there was any agreement be-
tween this Respondent and the said rhomss, or
any other person or persons, 70 use Intimidation
or threats; nor Is there any allegation as to the
nature OF said intimidation and threats, or that
there was any agreement to carry then into exc
cution, or that any step was taken or agreed to De
taken tolcarry them into execution; and the ALE
cation in said article that the intent Of said con-
spirscy was to use intimidation and threats IL
wholly insufficient. inssmuch as II IL not alleged
that said intent formed the basis, or became the
part Of any agreement between said alleged con.
spirstors; and. furthermore. that there is ALE
cation OF any conspiracy or agreement to use in
Answer to Article 5.--And for answer TO the
said fifth article this respondent denies that on
the 2lst day of February, 1868. or any other time
or times In the same year, before the said I'd day
of March, 1868, or at any prior or subsequent
time, at Washington aforesaid, or at any other
place, this respondent did unlawfully conspire
with said Thomastor with any other person or
persons, to prevent OF hinder the execution of
said act entitled ian act regulating the tenure of
certain civil ofices; or that, in pursuance of said
alleged conspiracy, he did unlawfully attempt to
prevent the said Edwin NJ. Stanton from holding
said Office of secretary for the department Of war;
or that be did thereby commit, or that he was
thereby guilty of, q high misdemeanor in Office.
Respondent, protesting that said Stanton was
not then and there secretary of war, begs leave
to refer to his given to the fourth article,
and 10 bis answer given TO the first article as to
his purpose in issuing the order for the removal
of Mr.. Stanton, and the authority given TO said
Thomas, aud prays equal benefit therefrom, as If
the same were here again repeated and fully set
forth. t
And this respondent excerpts to the suficieucy
OF the said nth article, and states ground for
such exception, that it is not alleged by what
means, or by what agreement said alleged con-
spiracy was formed or agreed to be carried out,
or in what way the same was attempted 70 be car
ried ont, or what were the acts done in pursuance
thereof. n fo"Il
Answer to the sixth article-That for answer to
the said sixth article the respondent denies that
on the said 2lst day Of February, 1868, at Wash
ington aforesaid or at any other time or place. he
did unlawfully conspire with the said Thomas by
force 10 SEIZE take or possess the property Of the
United States in the department Of war, contrary
TO the provisions of the said act, referred TO in
the said act, either Of them, or with intent to
violate either Of them. fIl
Respondent protesting that said Stanton was not
then and there secretary for the department of
war, not only denies the said conspiracy as
charged, but also denies any unlawful intent in
reference to the custody and charge of the pro-
perry Of the United States in the department of
war, and again refers TO his former ans vers for a
full statement of his intent and purposes in the
premises. -
The reading of the answer occupied one hour
and q half.