The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1868-03-27

right of said Stanton to resume the
said Office, or the power of the said
Stanton to persist in refusing to quit
said office, if he should persist ir re-
fnsing. Actually the respondent did,
on the 2lst day of February, 1865,
issue the order for the removal of
said Stanton, in the said first article
mentioned, and set forth, and the Or
der authorizing the said Lorenzo
Thomas to act rs Secretary of War
ad interim, in said second article set
forth, and this respondent proceed
ing to answer specifically each sub
stantivc allegation in said frs arti-
Gle.
He denies that the said Stanton on
the 2lst day Of February, 1868, was
lawfully in possession ofthe said Office
of the Secretary for the Department
Of War.
He denies that SAID Stanton, on
the day last mentioned, was lawfully
entitled to hold said office against
the will Of the President Of the United
States. He denies that said order
for the removal of said Stanton was
unlawfully issued.
He denies hat the said order was
issued with the intent to violate the
act entitled an act to regulate he ten
ure of certain civil officers. He de-
nies that said order was a violation
of the last mentioned act. He denies
that'the said order was a violation OF
the Constitution of the United States,
or of any law thereof, or of his oath
of Office. He denies that the said or
was issued with an intent to violate
the Constitution of the United States,
or of any law thereof, of his respon-
dents oa.h of office; and he respect
fully, but earnestly insists that not
only was it issued by them in the
performance OF what he believed to
be an imperative official duty, but in
the performance of which this Hon.
orable Court will consider was. in
point of fact, an imperative official
duty, and he denies that any and all
substantial matters in said first arti,
Gle contained in manner and form as
the same, and therein stated and set
forth, do by law constitute high
misdemeanor in Office within the true
meaning of Constitution of the Unit
ed States.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE II.
And for answer to the second arti-
Gle, this respondent says that he ad-
mits he did issue and deliver to said
Lorenzo Thomas said writing, set
forth in said second article, bearing
date Washington, February 81, 1865,
addressed to Brevet Major Gen. Lo-
renzo Thomas, Adjutant Genaral, U.
S. A, Washington, D. c., and he fur
ther admits that it was so issued with
out the knowledge and coun ell of the
Senate of the United States, in session
but he denies that he thereby vlolat-
ed the Constitution of the United
States. or any law thereof, or that he
did thereby intend to violate the Con-
stitution of the United States or the
provisions of any act of Congress.
And this respondent refers to his
answer to the first article for a full
statement Of the purposes and inten-
tions with which said order was is
sued, and adopts the same as part of
his answer to this article.
He further denies that there was
then no vacancy in said office of Sec
retary for the Department of War, or
that he did then and there commit or
was guilty of high misdemeanor in
Office, and the respondent maintains
and will insist, first, that at the date
and delivery in said writing, there
was q vacancy existing in the office
of Secretary for the Department of
War; 2d, that notwithstanding the
Senate of the United States was then
In session, IL was lawful aud accord
ing to long and well established usage
to empower and authorize said Thorn
as to act rs Secretary of War ad in
terim Sd, that if the said act regu-
lating the tenure o: civil officers, be
held to be q valid law, no provision
of the same was violated by the issu-
ing of said order by the designation
of said Thomas to act as Secretary of
War, al interim.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE III.
For answer to the Sd article, this
respondent says, he hides by his an.
swer to the lst and I'd articles, in so
far as the same are responsive to the
allegations contained in the Sd arti-
Gle, and without here again repeating
the same answer prays that the same
be taken as an answer to this third
article as fully as if he again set out
at length; AMI as to new allegation
contained in said article, that this re
spondent did appoint the said Thom-
as to be Secretary for the Depart
ment Of War, ad interim, this re-
spondent denies that he gave any
other authority to said Thomas than
such as appears in said written ac-
thOrity set ont in said article, by
which he authorized and empowered
said Thomas to act as Secretary for
the Department of War ad interim,
and he denies that the same amounts
to any appointment, and insists that
1T is only designation of an officer
OF the Department, to act temporari-
ly as Secretary for the Department of
War al interim, until an appoint
ment should be made; but whether
said written authority amounts to any
or a temporary author
lty, or desegration. This respondent
ieIles that in any sense he did there
by intend to violate the Constitution
Of the United States, or that he there.
BY intended to give said order the
or effect of an appointment
n the Constitutional or legal sense
Of the term. He further denies that
here was no vacancy in said Office of
Secretary fer the Department of War
at date of said written au-
hority.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE w.
And fUr-answer to said fourth arti-
lie, this respondent denies that Oh
he 2lst day of February, 1868, at :
aforesaid, or at any othss !
r time or place, he did unlawfully .
onspire with said Lorenzo Thomas, :,
Il with said Thomas or any other .
erson or persons, with intent by in !;
imidation or threats unlawiully to :
inder and prevent said Stanton from =