Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1868-03-26
The Substance Of the Presideni''
Reply 10 the Impcachmcnt.

A+' AtAft hAN ANAANN 'NhANfA AAAA hANNANA
every hour since the last days proceed
ings to prepare the Presidents answer,
and regretted that they had not had more
time but submitted TO il now. Mr.
Curtis read IL, the address being Ia the
Senate Of the United State
The answer 10 the first article rocites
the circumstances of Mr. Stanton's APP
pointment and his continuance in Office
! by Mr., johnson, maintaining that Mr.
Stanton held office only by virtue of hi,
appointment by Mr.. Lincoln, that the
subsequent conduct Of Mr.. Stanton rem.
dered his retention as Secretary of War
incompatible with the public interests and
the proper discharge of the executive
duties with which he was charged, and
for which the President was responsible
The correspondence of August was
cited and the answer claims that the set
tied practice of all preceding Presidents
and of Congress, settles the right of the
President TO remove subordinates at will,
and that in good faith he removed the
said Stanton in accordance with his un-
derstanding of the requirements of the
constitution, and notified the Senate OF
his action, expecting that the difference OF
opinion between them would be as il
should be. determined by the judicial
authority. The answer further claims
that the tenure of Office act, even admitting
its constitutionality, does not cover the
case of Mr.. Stanton. The necessity OF
settling the point in dispute between the
Executive and the Legislative branohes OF
the government. is insisted upon at length,
and it is maintained that it could be
: brought before The courts in no other
way. The removal of Mr.. Stanton was
made in pursuance of the authority of the
constitution, and was not forbidden by
any course of the tenure of office act
The answer denies, specifically, all the
allegations of the first article, which as.
serts that Mr. Stanton had legal posses
sion of the War Office after the date OF
his removal, and oil the subsequent ollo-
cations of the first article. The suspen-
sion of MIR. Stanton is claimed to have
been made under the authority of the
constitution, which in granting the power
of removal, gives by implication the les
ser power of suspension as included in it.
Mr.. Stanbery read the answer to the Sec
ond article, reasserting the arguments adj
duced in answer to the first, and denying
that the tenure of Office act was violated
In answer to the third article; the respond
ent denied that Mr.. Stanton held his of
fee by appointment from him. The
charges of conspiracy, &c,, are replied to
by the answer to the first article. He de-
MES that he gave Gen. Thomas any in
structions to call in the aid of military
force to gain possession Of the War De
partment, and that no force had been
used by Gen. Thomas, but a pcaceable de-
mand was made and refused. In answer
to the fifth article, he denies having at
tempted to hinder the execution of the
tenure Of Office law, and says it is not al
legged what means were employed to effect
such purposes. The sixth article is met
with denial that the respondent con-
spirod with Gen. Thomas to use force
The seventh article is replied to by the
answer of the fourth. In answer to the
eighth specification, it is said that the
Presidents action was in order to bring
the matter before the Supreme Court. In
reply to the ninth, the particulars of the
respondents interview with Gen. Emery,
are given. To the charge Of attempting to
induce him to violate the law, denial is
given, and it is asearted that what the
President said was merely an expression
of private opinion. The answer alleges
that the specifications to show the com.
initial of misdemeanors are imperfect
Mr.. Evarts then proceeded to read the an
swer to the tenth article.
, The respondent does not admit the cor
rectness of the report of his speech, re-
ferred to in the first specification, and the
same denial is made as to the second and
third speei cations, namely that Tire ex-
tracts quoted do not fairly nor justly rep
resent the character Of his remarks on
the occasions referred to- He denies that
he has been unmindful Of the duties OF
his office, &c., and denies that he has ever
said that Congress was not Congress
capable of making laws for all the States
because some of them were unrepresented
He admits he has said to the people, just
as he has said to Congress itself, that it
policy is not calculated to bring abou,
peace and harmony. He insists upon his
right to have and to express, on proper
occasions, his opinion as to the policy Of
Congress. He denies that the tenth arti.
Gle, in all its specifications, affords any
grounds for impeachment. They apply
! only to the discretion of the responder,
J in his personal capacity. In answer tc
; the eleventh article, he denies that he
ever has, in substance or by implication
questioned the power or validity of Con.
J gress to make laws or propose amend.
ments to the Constitution. He insists
however, npon his private and official
right to hold and express opinions, and
alleges that this article, like the tenth
makes no charges calling for impeach.
ment.
The reading of the answer occupied
one hour and half.