New-York tribune., 1868-03-24

nit or was guilty OF high msdemeanor IN ONCE; uH"
this respondent maintains, and will insist
First That at the date and delivery OF said writing
there was vacancy existing in the office OF Secretary
for the Department of War.
Second: That notwithstanding the Senate OF the United
States then In session. it lawful and aecordnS
TO long and well established usage TO empower aud au-
torze the said Thomas to act as Secretary Of War al
interim.
Third: That II the said act regulating the tenure Of
civil offices be held TO be valid law, provision Of the
same was violated by the issuing Of said order or by the
designation OF said Thomas to act Secretary of War I'D
interim
ANSWER TO ABTIcLE III-And for answer TO said third
article this respondent says that he abdes by his answers
said and second articles in far the same are
responsive the allegations contained in the said third
article, and without here again repeating the same an
swer prays that the be taken answer TO this
third article fully II here again set out at length
and, TO the allegation contained IN said thrd
article, that this respondent did appoint the
said Thomas TO be Secretary for the Department
Of War ad Interim this respondent denies that he gave
any other authority to said Thomas than such as appears
in said written authority in said article, by which
he authorized and empowered said Thomas to act as Sec
retary the Department OF War ad interim and he de-
nes that the amounts to appointment, ana IN
sss that is only designation OF an officer of that De-
partment TO act temporarily Secretary for the Depart
ment OF War I'D interim until appointment should be
made but whether the said written authority amounts
any appointment to temporary authority or desg-
nation this respondent denies that in any sense he did
thereby intend to violate the Constitution OF tho United
States that he thereby intended TO give the said order
the character effect OF appointment In the constu-
tonal legal Of the term He further denies that
there was no vacancy in said Office Of Secretary for the
Department Of War existing at the date Of said written
authority.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE Wand for answer 10 said fourth
article this respondent denies that on the 2st day OF
February 1863 at Washington aforesaid or at any other
time or place. he did unawully conspre with the said
Lorenzo Thomas with the said Thomas or any other
person or persons, with intent by intimidation and
threats unlawfuly hinder and prevent the said STAN
ton from holding said Office OF Secretary for the Depart
ment Of War, in violation OF the Constitution OF the
United States Of the provisions Of the said act OF Con
gress said article mentioned that he did then and
there commit guilty Of high crime in Office on
the contrary therefore protesting that the said Stanton
was not then and there lawfully the Secretary OF the De-
parment of War this respondent states that his sole pur
pose in authorizing the said Thomas 10 act as Secretary
for the Department OF War, Gd tHterm as Is
fully stated, in his TO the said first article
TO bring question Of the right OF said Stanton to hold
said Office notwithstanding his said suspension ana not
wIhstanding the said order OF removal aud notwith
standing the said authority OF the said Thomas to act as
by the Supreme Court OF the United States in the earliest
practical mode in which the question could be brought
before that tribunal THIS respondent did not conspire
or agree with the said Thomas any other persons to
use intimidation threats hinder prevent the said
Stanton hold the Office Of Secretary for the Depart
ment OF War; did this respondent at any time COM
mand or advise the said Thomas any other person or
persons to resort to either threats or intimidation
for that purpose The only in the contemplation
or purpose OF the respondent TO be used set forth
IN the said orders OF February 81 the first addressed to
Mr. Stanton the second to the said Thomas BY the
first order the respondent notified Mr. Stanton that he
was removed from the said office, and that MS
functions as Secretary for the Department Of War
were TO terminate upon the receipt Of that order
And he also notified the said Stanton that the SAID
Thomas had been authorized to act as Secretary for the
Department OF War; dd interim, and ordered the said
Stanton TO transfer TO him all the records books papers,
and other public property in his custody ana charge ad
by the second order, this respondent notified the said
Thomas OF the removal from office OF the said stanton
and authorized him to act Secretary for the Depart
ment OF War, ad interim, and directed him to imme
datey enter upon the discharge Of the duties pertaining
TO that Office aud TO receive the transfer of all the re-
cords books papers and other public property from Me-
stanon-then in his custody and charge. Respondent
gave instructions TO the said Thomas to use intimda
ton threats enforce obedience to these orders he
gave him authority 10 call in the aid OF the military
any other force enable him to obtain possession OF the
Office OF the books papers records property thereof
The only agency resOred to- intended to be resorted
to- by of the said executive orders requiring
obedience the Secretary for the Department of War
refused obey these orders and still holds undsturbed
possession and custody Of that department. and OF the
records books papers and other public property therein
Respondent further states that in execution OF the orders
so by this respondent given to the said Thomas, he the
said Thomas proceeded IN peaceful manner to demand
fol inn rho mil e
ery the said department and TO yacate the possession
OF the same and allow him. the said Thomas peacea-
bly, TO exercise the duties devolved upon him by auhor
ty OF the Presidents that this respondent has been
informed and believes the said Stanton peremptory re-
fused obedience the orders issued Upon such re-
fusal, no force or threat OF force was used by
the said Thomas by authority OF the Presi-
dent or otherwise TO enforce obedience,
either then any subsequent time This respondent
doth here except TO the sucency Of the allegations con-
tanned said fourth article and states for ground Of ex
cepton that il is not stated that there any agree
between this respondent and the said Thomas or
any other person persons, 10 use intimidation and
threats s there any allegation as TO the nature OF
said intimidation and threats or that there was ans
agreement to carry them into execution that any step
was agreed TO be taken to carry them into exc
cntion and that the allegation In said article, that the
intent OF said conspiracy 10 use intimidation and
threats wholly insufficient nasmuch its not alleged
that the said intent formed the basis or became part Of
any agreement between the said alleged conspirat0rs
and furthermore that there is no allegation Of any con-
spiracy agreement to use intimidation or threats.
ANSWER To ARTICLE Y.-And for answer TO the said
NTH article, this respondent denies that Slst day Of
February 1863 at any other time times in the said
year. before the said 2d day Of March, 1868 at any
prior subsequent time at Washington aforesaid at
any other place. this respondent did unlawfuy conspre
with the SAID Thomas with any other person or per
to prevent hinder the execution OF the said act
entitled, An Act regulating the tenure OF certain civil
officers" or that in pursuance OF said alleged conspiracy
he did unlawfully attempt to prevent the said Edwin ~
Stanton from holding said office OF Secretary for the De
partment OF War; or that did thereby commit that
he waa therehx rnty Of high mlsdemeanOr In office