Year: 1868

ton and threats, OF that there was


any agreement TO carry them into


execution, or that any step was


taken or agreed to be taken to
carry them into execution, and


the allegation IN said article - Of
intent at conspiracy or to use
intimidation and threats--is wholly
insufficient, inasmuch as il is not az
legged that said intent formed the ba-
sis or became part of an agreement
between said alleged conspirators; and
furthermore that there Is no allega
ton Of any conspiracy or agreement to
use intimidation or Threats, In answer
to article five, and for an answer to
it, be said the fifth article of this re
spondent denies that on the 2lst of
February, 1868, or any other time or
times in the same year before the
said 2nd day of March, 1868, or at
any prior or subsequent time at
Washington, after said time, or at
any other place, this respondent
did unlawfulIy conspire with
said Thomas, or with any other per-
son or persons, to prevent or hinder
the execution of the said act,
entitled An act regulating
the tenure Of certain civil Offices !"
or that IN pursuance of said
conspiracy he did unlaWfully attempt
to prevent the said Edwin NJ Stanton
from holding said Office of Secretaty
Of the Department of War; or that he
was guilty Of high crimes and misde-
meanors in office the respondent pro-
testing that said Stanton was not
then and there Secretary of War, begs
leave to refer to his answer given to
the first article as to his purpose in
his issuing the orders for the re-
mOyal Of Mr.. Stanton, and the au-
thority. given to said Thomas;
aud prays equal benefit therefrom
as II the same were here again re-
peated and fully set forth; aud this
eXcepts to the sufficiency
of the said fifth article, and states, as
ground for such exception, that it is
not alleged by what means or by what
agreement said alleged conspira-
cS was fOrmed;t by what agree
ment said alleged conspiracy
was 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 10 pursu-
ance thereof; in answer to the article
the respondent denies that, on said
2lst day of February, 1868, at Wash
ington aforesaid, or at any other time
or place, he did unlawfully conspire
with the said Thomas by force to
seize, take or possess the property of
the United States In the Department
of War, contrary to the provisions of
the said acts referred to in the De-
partment of War, and contrary to the
provisions Of the said acts referred to
iu the said article, or either Of
them, or with the intent to vio-
late either of them, the re-
spondent protesting that the said
Stanton was not then and there Sec
retary for the Department of War.
He not only denies the said conspi
racy as charged, but also denies any
unlawful intent In reference to the
custody and charges of the property
Of the United States In the said
Of War, and again re-
fers to ais former answers for
a fall statement of his intent and
purpose in the premises. nrH ma


In answer to Article 7th and for





respondent denies that, on the said
21st dayOf February, 1868, at Wash
ington aforesaid, or at any other time
or place, he uulaWfully seized or took
possession Of the property of the
United States, in the Department OF
War, with intent to violate or disFe-
gard the said Act in the 9TH Article
to, or that he did then a8a
there commit a high misdemeanor in
Office; the respondent protesting that
said Stanton was net then aud there
for the Department of War,
again refers to his former answer, in
so far as they are applicable to show
the intent with which he proceeded
IN the premises, and prays equal
benefit therefrom. The same we're
here again fully repeated. The re-
spondent further takes exception to
the suficiency of the allegations
of this article as to the con-
spiraey alleged in the same
stated in the exception set
forth ID his answer to said article
fourth. Answer to article eighth;
and for answer to the said article
eight, this the respondent denies. that
on the 21st day of February, 1868, at
Washington aforesaid, or at any
other time or place, he did issue
or deliver to the said Thomas, the
said letter with the authority set
forth in the said eighth article,
with the intent unIawfully to
control the disbursement of
money appropriated for the militia
ry service and for the Department Of
War, this respondent protesting that
there was a vacancy IN said office of
Secretary for the Department of War,
and admits that he did issue the said
letter of authority, and he denies