362 



IMPEACHMENT. 



nation, this respondent denies that in any sense he 

 did thereby intend to violate the Constitution of the 

 United States, or that he thereby intended to give 

 the said order the character or effect of an appoint- 

 ment in the constitutional or legal sense of that 

 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. 



ANSWEB TO ABTICLE IV. 



And for answer to said fourth article this respon- 

 dent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 

 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at any other time 

 or place, he did unlawfully conspire with the said Lo- 

 renzo Thomas, or with the said Thomas and any other 

 person or persons, with intent by intimidations and 

 threats unlawfully to hinder and prevent the said 

 Stanton from holding said office of Secretary for the 

 Department of War, in violation of the Constitution of 

 the United States or of the provisions of the said 

 act of Congress in said article mentioned, or that he 

 did then and there commit or was guilty of a high 

 crime in office. On the contrary thereof, protesting 

 that the said Stanton was not then and there lawfully 

 the Secretary for the Department of War, this re- 

 spondent states that his sole purpose in authorizing 

 the said Thomas to act as Secretary for the Depart- 

 ment of War ad interim w^as, as is fully stated in his 

 answer to the said first article, to bring the question 

 of the right of the said Stanton to hold said office, 

 notwithstanding his said suspension, and notwith- 

 standing the said order of removal and notwithstand- 

 ing the said authority of the said Thomas to act as 

 Secretary of War ad interim, to the test of a final de- 

 cision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 

 the earliest practicable mode by which the question 

 could be brought before that tribunal. 



This respondent did not conspire or agree with the 

 said Thomas, or any other person or persons, to use 

 intimidation or threats to hinder or prevent the said 

 Stanton from holding the said office of Secretary for 

 the Department of War, nor did this respondent at 

 any time command or advise the said Thomas or any 

 other person or persons to resort to or use either 

 threats or intimidation for that purpose. The only 

 means in the contemplation or purpose of respondent 

 to be used are set torth fully in the said orders of 

 February 21, the first addressed to Mr. Stanton, and 

 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 his functions as 

 Secretary for the Department of War were to termi- 

 nate upon the receipt of that order, and he also there- 

 by notified the said Stanton that the said Thomas 

 had been authorized to act as Secretary for the De- 

 partment of War ad interim, and ordered the said 

 Stanton to transfer to him all the records, books, pa- 

 pers, and other public property in his custody and 

 charge; and by the second order this respondent 

 notified, the said Thomas of the removal from office 

 of the said Stanton, and authorized him to act as 

 Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, and 

 directed him to immediately enter upon the discharge 

 of the duties pertaining to that office, and to receive 

 the transfer of all the records, books, papers, and 

 other public property from Mr. Stanton, then in his 

 custody and charge. 



Eesppndent gave no instructions to the said Thomas 

 to use intimidation or threats to enforce obedience to 

 these orders. He gave him no authority to call in the 

 aid of the military, or any other force to enable him 

 to obtain possession of tne office, or of the books, 

 papers, records, or property thereof. The only 

 agency resorted to or intended to be resorted to was 

 by means of the said executive orders requiring obedi- 

 ence. But the Secretary for the Department of War 

 refused to obey these orders, and still holds undis- 

 turbed possession and custody of that Department, 

 and of the records, books, papers, and other public 

 property therein. Eespondent further states that, in 

 execution of the orders so by this respondent given 



to the said Thomas, he, the said Thomas, proceeded 

 in a peaceful manner to demand of the said Stanton 

 a surrender to him of the public property in the said 

 Department, and to vacate the possession of the same, 

 and to allow him, the said Thomas, peaceably to exer- 

 cise the duties devolved upon him by authority of 

 the President. That, as this respondent has been 

 informed and believes, the said Stanton. peremptorily 

 refused obedience to the orders so issued. Upon 

 such refusal no force or threat of force was used by 

 the said Thomas, authority of the President, or other- 

 wise, to enforce obedience, either then or at any sub- 

 sequent time. 



This respondent doth here except to the sufficiency 

 of the allegations contained in said fourth article, 

 and states for ground of exception that it was not 

 stated that there was any agreement between this re- 

 spondent and the said Thomas, or any other person 

 or persons, to use intimidation and threats, nor is 

 there any allegation as to the nature of said intimida- 

 tion and threats, or 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 that the allegation in said article that the intent 

 of said conspiracy was to use intimidation and threats . 

 is wholly insufficient, inasmuch as it is not alleged 

 that the said intent formed the basis or became a 

 part of any agreement between the said alleged con- 

 spirators, and, furthermore, that there is no allega- 

 tion of any conspiracy or agreement to use intimida- 

 tion or threats. 



ANSWEB TO ARTICLE V. 



And for answer to said fifth article, this respon- 

 dent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 1868, 

 or at any other time or times, in the same year be- 

 fore the said 2d day of March, 1868, or at any prior 

 or subsequent time, at Washington aforesaid, or at 

 any other place, this respondent did unlawfully con- 

 spire with the said Thomas, or with any other person 

 or persons, to prevent or hinder the execution of the 

 aid act entitled " An act regulating the tenure of 

 certain civil offices," or that, in pursuance of said al- 

 leged conspiracy, he did unlawfully attempt to pre- 

 vent the said Edwin M. Stanton from holding said 

 office of Secretary for the Department of War, or that 

 he did thereby commit, or that he was thereby guilty 

 of, a high misdemeanor in office. Eespondent, pro- 

 testing that said Stanton was not then and there Sec- 

 retary for the Department of War, begs leave to refer 

 to his answer given to the fourth article and to his 

 answer given to the first article as to his intent and 

 purpose in issuing the orders for the removal of Mr. 

 Stanton, and the authority given to the said Thomas, 

 and prays equal benefit therefrom as if the same 

 were here again repeated and fully set forth. 



And this respondent excepts to the sufficiency of 

 the said fifth article, and states his ground for such 

 exception, that it is not alleged by what means or by 

 what agreement the 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 in pursuance thereof. 



ANSWEB TO ABTICLE VI. 



And for answer to the said sixth article, this respon- 

 dent denies that on the aid 21st day of February,-lS68, 

 at Washington 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 said 

 article, or either of them, or with intent to violate 

 either of them. Eespondent, protesting that said 

 Stanton was not then and there Secretary for the De- 

 partment of War, not only denies the said conspiracy 

 as charged, but also denies any unlawful intent in 

 reference to the custody and charge of the property 

 of the United States in the said Department of War, 

 and again refers to his former answers for a full 

 statement of his intent and purpose in the premises. 



