The New York herald., 1868-03-24

ful manner TO demand of the said Stanton surren-
said department and to p1s vacate % the possession
OF the same, and to allow him, the said Thomas,
peaceaDy 10 exercise the duties devolved upon him
by authority OF the President; that this respond
ent has been informed and believes the said stanton
| peremptorily refused obedience to the orders SO
| Issued. Upon such refusal no force or threat OF
force was used by the said Thomas by authority OF
the President Or otherwise TO enforce obedience
ent doth here except to the suficency Of the alega
tions contained In said fourth article and states for
ground OF exception that Is not stated that there
was any agreement between this respondent
and the said Thomas or any other person persons
alteration as 10 the nature Of said intimidation and
threats or that there was any agreement to carry
them into execution or that any step & was taken or
and that the allegation In said article tha the intent
OF said conspiracy was to use intimidation and
threats is wholly insufficient, inasmuch as Il Is not
alleged that the said intent formed the basis or be-
came a part OF any agreement between tne sald
allegation Of any conspiracy or agreement to use
intimidation or threats.
Ans,cer to Article 5.-And for answer to the said
fifth article this respondent denies that on the 2lst
the same year before the said I'd day OF March, 1885,
aforesaid or at any other pace this respondent did
unlawfu1y consplre with the said Thomas, or with
execution OF the said act entitled regulating
the tenure OF certain civil Offices" or that, In pur-
attempt to prevent the said Edwin NJ stanton from
| holding said office OF Secretary for the Depart
ment OF War; n or that ne fsereb1 d afDy Of COM
| high msdemeanor In once Respondent
protesting that said stanton was not then and there
Secretary OF War; begs leave to refer TO his answer
given to the fourth article and to his given
to the first article as to his intent and purpose In
| the authority given to the said Thomas, and prays
| equal benefit therefrom as II the same were here
| again repeated and fully set forth.
And this respondent excepts to the suhiciency OF
the said fth article, and states his ground for such
w
formed or agreed to be carried out or In what way
the same was attempted to be carried out or what
| were the acts done In pursuance thereof
A,ss,oer to Article 6.-And for answer to the said
sixth article this respondent denies that the said
2lst day of February, 1885, at Washington aforesaid
or at any other time or place. he did unlawfully
spire with the said Thomas by force to SEIZE take or
the property OF the United States In the De-
| partment of War; contrary to the provisions OF the
said acts referred to In the said article or either OF
them or with intent to violate either OF them tsn Ms
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 GUS
tody and charge Of the property OF the United States
In the said Department Of War, and again refers to
his former for full statement Of his intent
| and purpose in e premises.
Aais,oer to Article 7-And for answer to the said
seventh article defendant denies that the said 2lst
day Of February 1868, at washington aforesaid at
any other time and place, he did unawfuly consplre
with the said Thomas with intent unlawfqlly to
seize, take or possess the property OF the United
| States in the Department OF War, with IN
tent to violate, or disregard the said act in the
| and there commit high msdemeanor in office.
Respondent protesting that the said Stanton was not
then and there Secretary for the Department OF War,
again refers to his former answers in so far as they
are applicable to show the intent with which he pro-
ceeded IN the premises ana nrays equal henet tnere
Respondent further takes exception to the sufciency
OF the allegations Of this article as to the conspiracy
| alleged upon the same grounds as stated In the eX
ceptiOn set forth in his answer to said article fourth
Aas,oer to article s.-And for answer to the said
eighth article this respondent denies that on the 2lst
day OF February 1853, at Washington aforesaid or at
any other time and place, he did issue and deliver to
the said Thomas the said letter Of authority set forth
In the said eighth article with the intent unlawfuly
to control the disbursements OF money appropriated
for the military service and or the department OF
vacancy in the said office OF Secretary for the Depart
ment OF War, admits that he did issue the said letter
OF authority and he denies that the same was with
any unlawful intent whatever either TO violate the
constitution OF the United States any act OF Con-
gress on the contrary this respondent again affirms
that his sole intent was to vfndicate his authority
as President OF the United States and, by
rrht Of tS the said % Stanton 70 Continue to
hold the sad oiIlce Of Secretary OF War TO final
decision before the Supreme Court Of the United s
prays the same benefit from his answer in the premi
! ses as If the same were here again repeated al
! 1nsrer to Article 9--And for answer to the sait
ninth article the respondent states that, on the saie
22d day Of February 1885, the following note was ad
dressed TO The said Emory by the private secretary o
the rcspondent:-
WASHINGTON, b. d, Fe6. %, 1858; : ;,
GrSEaA-The President directs TO- say that he win
be pleased to have call him as early practicable
'''''''''w WILLIAM q. MOORE, United States Army.
General Emory called at the Executive mansion
according 10 this request. The object OF respondent
was to be advised by General Emory, as Commander
| Of the Department OF Washington, what changes
had been made In the military affairs Of the depart
| ment. RESPONDENT had been informed that various
changes had been made which in nowise had been
brought TO his notice or reported to him from the
| Department OF War or from any other quarter, and
desired 10 ascertain the facts. After said Emory had
n nod N lot
place said Emory called the attention OF respondent
TO general order, which he referred TO- and which
this respondent then sent for when 1t was produced
| 1t IL as io0ws:-
WAs,saros; sAsRr., oSbIs D. S3 S5 March NJ H. 1857.
following Of CONGRESS published for the infor.
m"'''" anu gov public + Document No. s5)
act asas g. as
% Ss Of S
ington and All orders and instructions relating to military
fsr through he General The 1Tay
q % h Ay shs no Be- removed or
q 4. 2 wsa ssn
previous approval o the Senate any orders
rcquremens Of this section shall null void any
d M ss al s asemsa %
oce and officer Of the army who shall trans
ssass s see thai
issued shall be liable to Tor not
thsreof u any court q competent jurisdiction
| ~ order az The SECRETARY OF WAR;
| Il. d. TowNsESD, Assistant Adiuant General.
General Emory not only called the attention OF re-
sponden 10 tis order but to the fact that II was in
conformity with section contained In an appropria-
ton act passed by Congress. Respondent after read
ing the order, observed"rhis Is not I'm accordance
| with the constitution OF the United states, which
| makes mo Commander-inChlef OF the Army and
| NAVY or OF the language Of the commission which
| You hold" General Emory then stated that this
| order had met respondents approval. Respondent
| then said IN snbstance:-"tm to understand that
| the President Of the United States cannot give an
order hut through the General-inChlcf, or General
Crahty 70 General Emory again reiterated the state
| ment that II had met respondents approval,
and that il was the opinion OF some OF the leading
LAWYERS OF the country that this order was constitu-
| tIonal With some further conversation respondent
| then inquired the names OF the LAWYERS who had
| given me opinion and he mentioned the names OF
| two Respondent then said that the object OF the
law was very evident referring to the clause In the
| Appropriation act, upon which the order purported
to be based. This according TO the respondents