The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1868-03-25

nfraf
article is as follows: And this respondent proceed
ing to answer specifically each substantive allegation
IN the said first article says he denies that the said
Stanton, on the 2lst day of February, 1865, was law
fully Ill possession of the said Office of secretary for
I the department OF War. He denies that the said
Stanton, on the day last mentioned, lawfully enti-
| tied to hold the said office, against the will of the
President of the United States He denies that tho
SAID order Tor the removal Of the said Stanton was
lawfully issued He denies that the said order was
issued with latent to violate the entitled an act to
regulate the tenure of certain civil Offices lie dcnieS
that the said order was violation of the Constnton
OF the uuted States Or of any law thereof or of his
oath or Office lie denies that the said order was is.
sued with any intent to violate the Constitution of the
United States or any law thereof or this respondents
oath OF ohce and he respectfully but earnestly insists
that not only was it issued by him in the performance
OF what he believed to be an imperative official duty
but IN Tie performance of what this honorable court
will consider was in point of fact an imperative official
DUTY and he denies that any and all substantive mat
tiers in the said first article contained in manner
and form as the same therein stated and set
forth do by law constitute high misdemeanor in
Office within the true intent and meaning of the Con-
sttution of the United States" Answering the ser.
ond article he says first, that at the date and delivery
of said communication, there wasa vacancy existing
in the office OF Secretary for the Department Of war
Second, that notwithstanding the Senate Of tho ITod
otes was then III session. it lawful and according
to long and Well established usage, to emnower ana
authorize the said Thomas to act as Secretary of W.
ad interim Third that if said act regulating tho ten
ure Qt civil Offices be held to be valid law no nroy;
sion OF the same was violated by the issuing of said
oroer or by the designation of said Thomas to act as
secretary OF War ad interim. In answer to the third
article, auding to the order given Thomas he denies
.,at ue same amounts to an appointment and insists
that 1t is only designation of an officer of that de-
parment TO act temporarily secretary for the De-
partment OF War ad interim until an appointment
snoud DC made Included in the answer to the fourth
article Is the following This respondent states that
MS soe purpose IN aathorsing the said Thomas to act
as secretary for the Department of War ad interim
was as s fully stated in his answer to the first article
TO bring the question Of the right of the said Stanton
TO bold said Office notwithstanding his said suspension
and notw ithstanding the said order of removal and
Notwithstanding the said authority Of the said Thomas
to act as Secretary of War ad interim to the test of
final decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the earliest practicable mode by which the
question could be brought before that tribunal" The
President repeats the following in effect, to all the
specifications regarding his speeches: But this re-
spondent does not admit that the passages therein set
forth as an extract from speech or address of this
respondent upon said OCCASION correctly or Justly pre-
sens his speech address upon said occasion but on
# this honorable court shall deem tile said article and
Inc said first specification thereof to contain allegation
d matter cognsable by this honorable court high
nisdemeanor in Office, within the intent and meaning
ot the Constitution Of the United States, and shall
,eIve or alowproo In support of the same that proof
ha be required to be made Of the actual speech or