The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1868-04-03


Constitution of the United States, or OF
any law thereof, or of his oath of office
He denies that the said order was is
sued with intent to violate the COnsti-
tuition Of the United States, or any law
thereof, or this respondents oath OF
office; and he respectfully but earnest
ly insists that not only was it issued by
him in the performance of what he be-
lieved to be an imperative official du-
ty, but in the performance of what this
honorable court will consider was. in
in point of fact, an imperative offici-
al duty and he denies that any and all
substantive matters in the said first ar
ticle contained, in manner and form as
the same are therein stated set forth,
do by law constitute high misdemean-
or in Office, within the true intent and
meaning of the Constitution of the u
tied States.
In answer to the second article of i'm
peachment, the President admits that
he appointed Gen. Lorenzo Thomas
Secretary of War dd Interim, without
the advice and consent of the Senate,
for the reason that there was a vacan-
cy in the Office of Secretary Of War,
and that he had the right to appoint
General Thomas under the COnstitu-
ton.
That Notwithstanding the Senate of
the United States was then in session.
it was lawful and according to long and
well-estabished usage to empower and
authorize the said Thomas to act as Secre-
tary of War dd interim.
That if the said act regulating the
tenure of civil offices he held to I've a
valid law, no provision Of the same was
violated by the issuing of said order by
the designation of said Thomas to act
as Secretary Of War dd interim.
In answer to the third article, he
abides by his answers to the first and
secopd, so far as the allegations con-
tained in them are pertinent thereto
He denies that his order to Thomas a.
mounted to anappointmentin in the legal
and constitutional meaning ofthatwOrd.
In answer to the fourth article, he
denies that he did unlaWiully conspire
with Thomas or others to prevent or
hinder Stanton from holding office as
Secretary Of War. or that he was guilty
Of high crime or misdemeanOr. He
denies that Stanton was Secretary of
War at that time, and that he did not
advise Thomas or any other person or
persons to use any coercion to obtain
possession of the Department of War ;
that no force was used by Thomas in
obedience 10 the President, and there
was no agreement between him and
Thomas to use any force whatever.
The allegations of said article that there
was an intent to Use force is wholly
unSuStained.
In answer to the sixth article, res
pOndent denies that he entered at any
time with any person or persons into
a conspiracy to defeat the operation of
the tenure-of-olfice law, and that there
is no statement of the steps taken in
pursuance of such alleged design.
In answer to the seventh article, he
denies that he attempted at any time
to take possession of the property OF
the War Department; that he did not
commit a crime and misdemeanOr, and
refers to other articles to show his in
tent.
In answer to the eighth article, he
denies that he made an attempt to
take possession of money and records
Of the War Department.; that he acted
in an unconstitutional manner.
In answer to the ninth article Mr..
Stanbery read the Presidents note to
Gen. Emory, anI stated that the Pres
ident merely wished to consult with
Emory on some matters pertaining to
the administration of his department.
Gen. Emory called his the President'sl
attention to the law directing that or
ders to the army shall be sent through
Gen. Grant, to which the President re-
piled that he considered it In conflict
with the Constitution. The article, af-
ter detailing the conversation between
the President and Gen. Emory, denied
the allegation that the respondent had
attempted to interfere with or influence
Gen. Emory in an unconstitutional
manner, and that his opinion there eX-
pressed was what he honestly and sin
cerely believed.
Mr. Evarts then proceeded to read
the answer to the tenth article. The
article gave the history of the commit
tee, and stated that, in reply to the ad-
dress of the committee, he made GER
tain remarks. He denied that he was
correctly reported on that occasion, and
that the remarks attributed to him are
not his precise words. He also denied
that the speech attributed to him at
tanned in the articles of impeachment
gave no true representation ofhis mean
ing. Respondent also denies the ac-
curacy of the st. Louis speech, and begs
that if admit ed it shall be all c0nsid-
cred, and no part of it eXpunged. Res
p0ndent further alleged that he had
communicated his views to Congress
relative to the misrepresentation of
certain States, and that such statements
were made in accordance with his
rights as an American citizen, and as
President of the United States. Furth-
ermore, theVieWs and o ,JiniOns express
ed by him III these speeches are the
same as he had expressed to Congress,
and should be SO considered. In fur
ther answer to the tenth article, in
consideration of his duties to the peO-
pie, he had and has the right of, OH
proper occasions, expressing OpiniOnstO
the people relative to the duty and char
acter rofCongress, reviews, mOtivesand
aims ofpublic men; and that uphOlding
the liberty of speech and the liberty of
the people, he cannot but hold that
such was and is his clear right and du-
ty. Therefore he insists that he but
exercised the right of any citizen in
thus addressing his fellow-citizens, and
therefore is not subject to impeach-
ment or other action at law.
In answer to the eleventh arti Gle,
respondent denies that he declared or
affirmed that the 29th Congress was
not legal Congress, or that he made
any allegation contained in said arti-
Gle. In the address then made he said
nothing Of the competency of said Con-
gress to pass any laws while Southern
States were unrepresented. He denied
that he had attempted to defeat the op-
nrntinn of fha oct nrONidino for the