Year: 1868

cember A. D. 1857 as viii he hereinafter more faiy
Aforesaid II 1t should become necessary to submit
the said questions TO judicial determination Inis
respondent at or near the date OF the last mentioned
order, did make known such to be his purpose 10
obtain judicial decision OF the said ques-
tons or such OF them as might be neces-
ing, says that in further pursuance Of his
intention and design II possible to perform what ne


70 s s duty e tSe oee Of
the Secretary for the Department OF War and at the
same time avoiding II possible any question respect
Ing the power OF removal from the Executive ONCE
confded to the President by the constitution OF te
United states; and any question respecting the con,
sact regulating the tenure Of Certain civil ofcers"
while ne should not by any act OF his abandon and
renaulsh either power which he believed the con-
United States to enable him to perform the duties OF
his Office or power designedly lett to him by the
This respondent did, on the 18th day of December,
1867, transmit to the Senate OF the United States


message, copy Of which Is hcreunto annexed and
marked Is, wherein he made known the orders af0re-
said and the reasons which had induced the same,
far as this respondent then considered it material
and necessary that the same should he set FORTH and
reiterated his views concerning the constitutional
power OF removal vested In the President, and also
the said first section OF the last mentioned act as
respected the power of the President to remove
the said Stanton from the said ollce of Secretary
respondent could thus perform what he then
believed and still believes to be his imperative duty





from the powers which this respondent believed
were conided to the President by the constitution
and laws, and without the necessity Of raising judi
cially any question respecting the same. And this
respondent, further answering, says that this hope
not having been realized, the President was COM
PEELED either to allow the said Stanton resume the
said office and remain therein, contrary to the set
tied convictions Of the President, formed as afore
sd the ~ rs c9nded a to MN ana the
United States, and contrary to the opinion formed
as aforesaid, that the first section of the last men
nrnda n dtft fTnnff ~ fbn cafd
ton and contrary to the fixed belief OF the President.
that he uld no longer advise with or trust, or be
responsible for the said Stanton or the said
ONCE of Secretary OF war, or else he was compelled
to take such steps as might In the judgment OF the
President be lawful and necessary to raise for ju-
dical decision the questions Affecting 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 the said office II he should persist in actually to
quit the same and to this end only this respondent
did, on the 2st day OF February, 1S6S issue the or
der for the removal OF the said Stanton in the said
first article mentioned and set FORTH and the order
authorizing the said Lorenzo +. Thomas to act as
Secretary OF War al interim In the said second article
set FORTH And this respondent, proceeding to an
Swcr specifically each substantive allegation In the
said first article, says:He denies that the said STAN


in nossession Of ths said Office of Secretary for the
Department Of War. He denies that the sand Stan
ton, on the day last mentioned was lawfully entitled
to hold the said office against the will OF the Pres-
dent OF the United States. lie denies that the said
order for the removal Of the said Stanton unlaw


fully issued He denies that the said order was issued
with intent to violate the act entitled IAN act to reg


ulate the tenure OF certain civil ofcers. He denies
that the said order was violation OF the last men,
toned act. He denies that the said order was vi0


lation OF the constitution Of the United Staes or Of
any law thereof OF his oath Of Office He denies that
the constitution Of the United States any law there


Of this respondents oath OF office, and he respect


by him in the performance Of what he believed to be
an imperative official duty, but in the 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 matter In the said first
article contained In manner and form as the and
therein stated set forth, does by law constitute
HIGH misdemeanor in oilce within the true intent
and meaning OF the constitution OF the United States


41s,cer TO article 2.ind for answer to the second
article this respondent says that he admits he did
issue and deliver to said Lorenzo Thomas the said
writing set forth in the sad second article bearing
dressed to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas
Ineton, D. q, ana he further further al, admits s
the advice ana consent OF the Senate OF the United
States, then in session. but he denies that he there
by violated the constitution Of the United States
any law lthereof, or that he did thereby intend to
violate the constitution OF the United states or the
provisions OF any act OF Congress- and this respond,
ent refers his to said first article for full
statement Of the purposes and intentions with which
said order issued, and adopts the same as part
OF his to this article; and he further denies


that there then and there vacancy in the said
| Office Of Secretary for the Department of War OF
that he did, then and there, commit or was guilty O
| u high misdemeanor In Office; and this respondent
maintains and win insist:-Frst-T at the date
Sa Saeanes esSe Existing Sa the Ssn ONCE Of
tary for the Department OF War. Second
was then In session. It was lawful and according to
long and well established usage to empower and au-
thorze the said Thomas to act as Secretary OF War
al interim. Thrd-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 as Secretary Of War al interim.


Ans,rer 10 article Sand for answer to said
third article this respondent say that he abides by
Aa1 fr1t l.tr
as the same responsive t0 the allegations con-
tanned in the said third article; and, without here
saoe aS,a he a. taken as an answer to this third


article fully II here again set ont at length and
as to the new allegation contained IN said third arti-
cle that this respondent did appoint the said Thomas
to be Secretary for the Department. OF war "a an
te7im this respondent denies thai he gave any other
authority TO said Thomas than such as appears In
said written authority set out In said article, in
which he authorized and empowered said Thomas to
act Secretary for the Department OF War dd m
fe7.in ana he denies that the same amounts to an
appointment, aud insists that 1t is only designation
OF an officer OF that department to act temporarily
until an appointment should he made; but
whether the said written authority amounts


appointment ,a Or TO faG,
In any he did thereby intend 10 violate the con-
stituton OF the United states, or that he thereby in
tended to give the said order the character or effect
OF an appointment, In the constitutional or legal
sense OF the term. lie further denies that there was
no vacancy In said Office OF Secretary for the Depart





thorty.


Ans,cer to Article And for answer to said
fourth article this respondent denies that on the 2lst
day OF February 1865 at Washington aforesaid, or at
any other time place, he did rnlawfully con-
spire with the said Lorenzo Thomas, or with the
said Thomas, or any other person or per-
| sons, with intent by intimidation and threats,
\ unlawfuy 10 hinder and prevent the said
stanton from holding said Office OF Secretary
for the Department Of War; In violation OF the Con-
stituton OF the United States, OF the provisions Of
the said act OF Congress in said article mentioned
that he did then and there commit, or was guilty OF
| high crime In ONCE; on tile contrary, therefore,
protesting that the said Stanton was not then and


there lawfully the Secretary of the Department OF


War this respondent states that his sole purpose In


authorizing the said Thomas 10 act "a Secretary for
the Department OF War al Interim, as IL fully stated
In his answer to the said first article to bring the


question of the right OF the said Stanton to hold said
onice--notwhstandingt the said SUSPENSION and not
withstanding the said order Of removal and nowith


standing the said authority Of the said Thomas to act


as Secretary Of war dd inteyfnlto the test OF final
decision by the Supreme Court OF the United states


In the earliest practicable mode in which the question
| could be brought before that tribunal. This re.
| spondcnt did not coDspirc or agree with the said