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

10 me president IT
And this respondent, further answering. sHys
il + provided in and by the trst section Of an act
the president may suspend an officer from the
performance Of the duties Of the office held By
him, for certain causes designated until the next
meeting of the Senate and until the cause shall
be acted on by the Senate.
That this respondent, Is president OF the United
States, was ADVISED, be verify believed. and still
believes. that the executive power of removal
from Office con6ded TO him BY the Constitution
aforesaid, includes the power Of suspension from
Office st the pleasure Of the president. This re-
spondent. by the order aforesaid, did suspend
said Stanton from Office, though not until the
next meeting Of the Senate, or until the Senate
should have acted npon the case. but by force Of
the power and authority vested in him by the
Constitution and laws OF the United States.
indefinitely and at the pleasure of the president !;
ana the order aforesaid was made known to the
Senate Of the United States on the 18th day Of
December. A. D. 1861, as will be more fully here
matter stated.
And this respondent further SAYS. that BY the.
act Of February Is, 1875. II was among other
things, enacted and provided in case Of the va
cancy of the Office Of secretary Of the department
OF war, il shall be lawful for the president. in
son to performthe duties of that Office until sue
cessor be appointed, but not exceeding the term
of six months and this respondent being advised
aud believing that such law was in full force. and
not repealed by the order dated August IL. 1851
did authorize and empower u. 8. Grant, general
of the armies Of the United States, toTact as such
secretary for the department Of war Gd interim,
in the form in which similar authority had hitherto
been given, not until the next meeting Of the SEN
ate should act the case. but at the pleasure CT
the president. subject only to limitation of six
months In the last mentioned act. and copy of
the last named order was made known TO the Sen
ate Of the United States on the 18th day Of De-
cembert A. ID. 1867, as VIII be hereinafter more
fully stated. and In pursuance Of the designated
intention aforesaid II it should become necessary
to submit the question 20 judicial determination.
this respondf n at o. near the date of the LAST
mentioned order, did make known such his pur-
pose 10 obtain judicial decision Of said questions,
or such of them as might be necessary.
And this respondent, further answering. says
that in further pursuance of his intention and
design, II poss BILE, to perform what he believed
to be his duty, to prevent said E. NJ Stanton from
longer holding the Office of secretary for the de-
psrtment Of war, and at thessame time avoiding,
II possible, any question respecting the extent OF
tie power or removal from the executive Office
conhded 70 the president by the Constitution of
the United States, and any question respecting
the construction and effect Of the first section OF
the said act regulating the Tenure of certain civil
officers. while he should, by any act Of his own,
abandon aud reliDquish either q power he be-
lieyed the Constitution had conferred on the pres
ident Of the United States to enable him to
perform bis duty power designedly left to him
aforesaid. This respondent did, no the 18th day
OF December, 1867, transmit to the Senate of the
United States message, copy Of which Il here
unto annexed, and marked 3D." wherein he
made known The orders Aforesaid, and the rea-
rs which had induced the same, so far as the
respondent then considered II material and neces-
saTy that the same should be set forth, and retsr-
aed his views concerning the constitutional
power OF removal vested in the president, and
also expressed his views concerning the con-
sfr n he OH AZ - loo
toned act as respected the power Of the presi-
dent TO remove the said Stanton from said Office
of secretary for the department of war, well hop
ing that the respondent could thus perform what
he then believed, and still believes to be his i'm
perative duty in reference to said Stanton, with
out derogating from the powers which this re-
spondent believes were conided to the president
by the Constitution and laws. and without the ne
cessiiy Of raising judicaIly any question respect
ing the same. -
And this respondent, further answering, says
this hope not having been realized, the president
was compelled either to allow the said Stanton 70
resume said Office and remain therein. contrary to
The settled coHFictions of the president. formed
as aforesaid, respecting the powers confded TO
him and the duties required Of him by the Consti-
tuition Of the Untsd States, and contrary to the
opinion formed as aforesaid, that the first section
OF the last mentioned act did not affect the case
lief of the president chat he could no longer ad-
wise, trust or be responsible for the said Stanton,
or the said Office of secretary Of war or else he
was compelled to take such steps as might in the
Judgment OF the president. be lawful and neces-
sary to raise, for judicial decision the questions
sbectiDg the Lawful right of the said Stanton to
resume the said office, or the power Of the said
stanton to persist in refusing TO quit said Office:
the respondent did, on the I'd day of February
1885, issue the order for the removal Of said STAR
ton IN the said first article mentioned and set
Iorth, and the order authorizing the said Lorenzo
Thomas to act as secretary Of war 1d interim IN
said second article set forth.
This respondent, proceeding TO answer specially
each substantive allegation in said first article.
1enles that the said Stanton was, the 2lst day
of February. 1868, lawfully in possession of the
'aid office of secretary for the department of
var.
He denies that said Stanton, on the day last
mentioned, was lawfully entitled to hold said
+tlice against the will of the president Of the |
BE denies that said order for the removal of |
aid Stanton was unlawfuy issued.
He denies that the said order was issued with |
intent to violate the.act entitled an Act to regu-
ate the tenure Of certain civil offices.v
He denies that said order was in violation of |
he last mentioned act
81 denies that said order was violation of the |
ns tuition Of the United States or any Law |
: reef, or Of his oath Of Office.
lie denies that the said order was issued with /
be intent 10 violate the Constitution OF the United
states or any law thereof, or this respondents /
ath Of Office, and. he respectfully bat earnestly,
insists that not only was il issued by him in the /
performance o: what he believed TO be an i'm /
'eraiive official duty. but in the performance of /
THAT this honorable court will consider was, in |
ONT Of fact, an imperative official duty.
And he denies that any and all substantive mat
eTs IN said first article contained ia manner and
Orm as the same are therein stated and set forth.
o by Law constitute high misdemeauor in Office.
Tithin the true meaning Of the Constitution of
be United States.
Answer to article second And for an answer
D the second article, this respondent says he ad-
Its that be did issue and deliver to said Lorenzo
homas said writing set forth in said second arti-
le, bearing date at Washington, February 2I. |
36e, addressed to Brevet Major General Lorenzo
homas, adjatant general Of the United States
rmy, Washington, d. c."
he further admits that the order was issued
lat ne tnereOy violated the Constitlfi5a of the
nlteo states, or any law thereof. or that bs IA
leleoy intend to violate the Constitution of The
ongTess. Vi any ACT OF
And this respondent refers to his answer 20 The
81 article fog full statement OF the purooses
q intentions with which said order was i.s1sJ
tcle. 80 ~A9"eA W tnis |
and be further denies there was them No Va
ny - SAID ONCE OF secretary for the denart.
ent OF war, o. that he did then and there con-
y, or was guilty OF, high misdemeanor in otssea
nuf /