IMPEACHMENT. 



363 



ANSWER TO ARTICLE VII. 



And for answer to the said seventh article, respon- 

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

 at Washington aforesaid, or at any other time and 

 place, he did unlawfully conspire with the said Thom- 

 as with intent unlawfully to seize, take, or possess the 

 property of the United States in the Department of 

 War, with intent to violate or disregard the said act 

 in the said seventh article referred to, or that he did 

 then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office. 

 Eespondent, protesting that the said Stanton was not 

 then and there Secretary for the Department of War, 

 again refers to his former answerSj hi so far as they 

 are applicable, to show the intent with which he pro- 

 ceeded in the premises, and prays equal benefit there- 

 from, as if the same were here again fully repeated. 

 Eespondent further takes exception to the sufficiency 

 of the allegations of this article as to the conspiracy 

 alleged, upon the same ground as stated in the excep- 

 tions set forth in his answer to said article fourth. 



ANSWER TO ARTICLE VIII. 



And for answer to said eighth article, this respon- 

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

 Washington aforesaid, or at any other time or place, 

 he did issue and deliver to the said Thomas the said 

 letter of authority set forth in the said eighth article, 

 with the intent unlawfully to control the disburse- 

 ments of the money appropriated for the military 

 service and for the Department of War. This re- 

 spondent, protesting that there was a vacancy in the 

 office of Secretary for the Department of War, ad- 

 mits that he did issue the said letter of authority, 

 and he denies that the same was with any unlawful 

 intent whatever, either to violate the Constitution of 

 the United States or any act of Congress. On the 

 contrary, this respondent again affirms that his sole 

 intent was to vindicate his authority as President 

 of the United States, and by peaceful means to bring 

 the question of the right of the said Stanton to con- 

 tinue to hold the said office of Secretary of War to a 

 final decision before the Supreme Court of the United 

 States, as has been hereinbefore set forth and he 

 prays the same benefit from his answer in the prem- 

 ises as if the same were here again repeated at length. 



ANSWER TO ARTICLE IX. 



And for answer to the said ninth article, the re- 

 spondent states that on the said 22d day of Febru- 

 ary, 1868, the following note was addressed to the 

 said Emory by the private secretary of respondent : 

 EXECUTIVE MANSION, } 

 WASHINGTON, D. C., February 22, 1868. f 



GENERAL : The President directs me to say that he will 

 oe pleased to have you call upon him as early as practi- 

 cable. Kespectfully and truly yours, 



WILLIAM G. MOORE, U. S. Army. 



General Emory called at the -Executive Mansion 

 according to this request. The object of respond- 

 ent was to be advised by General Emory, as com- 

 mander of the department of Washington, what 

 changes had been made in the military affairs of the 

 department. Kespondent had been informed that 

 various changes had been made, which in nowise had 

 been brought to his notice or reported to him from 

 the Department of War, or from any other quarter, 

 and desired to ascertain the facts. After the said 

 Emory had explained in detail the changes which had 

 taken place, said Emory called the attention of re- 

 spondent to a general order which he referred to and 

 which this respondent then sent for, when it was pro- 

 duced. It is as follows : 



[General Orders, No. 17.] 



WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT- GENERAL'S OFFICE. ) 

 WASHINGTON, March 14, 1867. f 



m The following acts of Congress are published for the 

 information and government of all concerned : 



H PUBLIC No. 85. 



t making appropriations for support of the Army 

 for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes. 



SEC. 2. And be U further enacted, That the headquar- 

 ters of the General of the Army of the United States 

 shall be at the city of Washington, and all orders and in- 

 structions relating to military operations, issued by 

 the President or Secretary of War, shall be issued through 

 the General of the Army, and, in case of his inability 

 through the next in rank. The General of the Army shall 

 not be removed, suspended, or relieved from command 

 or assigned to duty elsewhere than at said headquarters, 

 except at his own request, without the previous approval 

 of the Senate ; and any orders or instructions relating to 

 military operations issued contrary to the requirements 

 of this section shall be null and void ; and any officer, who 

 shall issue orders or instructions contrary to the provi- 

 sions of this section, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 

 meanor in office ; and any officer of the Army who shall 

 transmit, convey, or obey any orders or instructions so 

 issued, contrary to the provisions of this section, know- 

 ing that such orders were so issued, shall be liable to im- 

 prisonment for not less than two nor more than twenty 

 years, upon conviction thereof in any court of compe- 

 tent jurisdiction. 



*********** 

 Approved March 2, 1867. 



By order of the Secretary of War, 



E. D. TOWNSEOT), Assistant Adjutant-General. 

 Official: 

 , Assistant Adjutant-General. 



General Emory not only called the attention of re- 

 spondent to this order, but to the fa>ct that it was in con- 

 formity with a section contained in an appropriation 

 act passed by Congress. Eespondent, after reading 

 the order, observed, " This is not in accordance with 

 the Constitution of the United States, which makes me 

 Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, nor with 

 the language of the commission which you hold." Gen- 

 eral Emory then stated that this order had met respon- 

 dent's approval. Eespondent then said in reply, in 

 substance, " Am I to understand that the President of 

 the United States cannot give an order but through the 

 General-in-chief?" General Emory again reiterated 

 the statement that it had met respondent's approval, 

 and that it was the opinion of some of the leading law- 

 yers of the country that this order was constitutional. 

 With some further conversation, respondent then in- 

 quired the names of the lawyers who had given the 

 opinion, and he mentioned the names of two. Ee- 

 spondent then said that the object of the law was 

 very evident, referring to the clause in the appropria- 

 tion act upon which the order purported to be based. 

 This, according to respondent's recollection, was the 

 substance of the conversation held with Gen. Emory. 



Eespondent denies that any allegations in the said 

 article of any instructions or declarations given to the 

 said Emorv, then or at any other time, contrary to 

 or in addition to what is hereinbefore set forth, are 

 true. Eespondent denies that, in said conversation 

 with said Emory, he had any other intent than to ex- 



ress the opinions then given to the said Emory, nor 

 id he then or at any other time request or order the 

 said Emory to disobey any law or any order issued 



in conformity with any law, or intend to offer any in- 

 ducement to the said Emory to violate any law. 

 What this respondent then said to General Emory 

 was simply the expression of an opinion which he 

 then fully believed to be sound, and which he yet 

 believes to be so, and that is, that, by the express pro- 

 visions of the Constitution, this respondent, as Presi- 

 dent, is made the Commander-in-chief of the Ar- 

 mies of the United States, and as such he is to be re- 

 spected, 1 and that his orders, whether issued through 

 the War Department or through the General-iri-chief, 

 or by any other channel of communication, are en- 

 titled to respect and obedience, and that such con- 

 stitutional power cannot be taken from him by virtue 

 of any act of Congress. Eespondent doth therefore 

 deny that by the expression of such opinion he did 

 commit or was guilty of a high mis demeanor in office ; 

 and this respondent doth further say that the said 

 article nine lays no foundation whatever for the con- 

 clusion stated in the said article, that the respondent, 

 by reason of the allegations therein contained, was 

 guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. 



