The New York Herald Newspaper, March 24, 1868, Page 3

WASHINGTON President Johnson’s Answers to the Arti- cles of Impea: hment, REPLICATION OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS, Hot Haste of the Radicals to Pro- eceed With the Trial. ‘WASHINGTON, March 23, 1868, Impeachment=Scene in the Galleries, ‘The impeachment show, as @ rush and a high priced entertainment to be seen at any cost, proved @ failure to-day. There was no breakneck flurry after tickets; members of Congress distributed those ‘they received quietly among their female relatives, and a8 a consequence the audience was decorous, was seven-eights feminine, and was fashionably ob- servant of the latest sensation, Impeachment, in fact, has become @ bore. The only attraction that seems to draw a crowd is the array of showy dresses and fluttering fans in the galleries, which might be likened to parterres or flower beds agitated, by a gentle breeze. This it might be worth fifty cents or so to see, for one has to visit a theatre or such like institution to see so much grouping ef color and so many pretty faces. This, ef course, is from a masculine point of view. Among the ladies it was diMcult to determine whether it afforded arly greater interest than a lecfure on the primeval condition of the races. No one fell asleep, it is true, but many faces be- tokened an unmistakeable expression of ennut, and when the symptom betrayed itself that counsel on either side were at the end of their tether, there was @ very general disposition on the part of the audience to betake themselves homeward. Ben Wade takes a sensible view of the whole affair when he says that in a few days the thing will become like an old fashioned case of litigation in the courts, which, for the first few days, will be attended by everybody, because every- body thinks it issomething he onght to see, but as nothing tarns up worth wasting the time to wait for the crowd diminishes and leaves ‘the matter to the counsel, Judge and jury. To-morrow tickets will be at a discount, and it is to be supposed the flower beds, or in other words the galleries, will be culled of their choicest flowers to-day. Meeting of the Managers—The Replication Resolved Upon. Aportion of the Board of Managers of Impeach- ment onthe part of the House of Representatives met this evening at the rooms of Mr. John A. Bing- ham, chairman of the Board, to consider the form and details of the replication to be presented to the Senate to-morrow at one o’clock, in reply to the answers of the President. The following is the re- Plication at this time determined upon:— By the House of Representatives of the United States to the answer and plea of Andrew Johnson, Presi- dent of the United States, to the articles of im- Esper as exhibited against him by the said louse of Representatives: ‘The Honse of Representatives, having considered the answer and plea of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, to the articles of impeachment against him by them exhibited in the Name of themselves and of all the people of the United States, reply that the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, in manner and form as charged against him as aforesaid, anything in his answers to the contrary notwithstanding; and this the House of Representatives is ready to make good when the Senate is ready to hear, The Board of Managers will meet in full session to- morrow morning at ten o’clock, when the replica- tion will be finally acted upon. Several special averments will then be considered, but it is not cer- tain that they will be incorporated in the replica- tion, as it is considered that a general replication is all that will be necessary. It is now understood that Mr. Butler will lead off the argument on behalf of the House of Representa- tives, Judge Black ard the President. ‘The absence of Judge Black's name from the answer of the President to the articles of impeach- ment presented to the Senate to-day has given rise to @ variety of speculations as to this rather strange and unexpected phase of the question on the side of the President. The statements that Judge Black and the President had quarrelled are unauthorized. It is known that the Judge accords with the gen- eral line of defence mapped out, though he does not coincide exactly with some of the details, The Judge, it appears, is determined to insist upon the position he has assumed, and it is now extremely doubtful whether he will appear in the trial at all, unless some concessions are made to the Ime of operations which he has laid out. Generals Hancock and Gordon Granger Bee fore the Impeachment Managers. Major General Hancock and Major General Gordon Granger were before the Impeachment Managers to- @ay. They were separately interrogated as to any con- versations they had had with the President respecting military matters. The former was especially asked ‘the reason of his coming to Washington by order of the President. He stated that he had previously asked to-be relieved from thé command of the Fifth Military Department, and to be sent to St. Louis to await orders, and that the President desired to con- verse with him on that subject and on the state of affairs in Louisiana. The President had said nothing to him apart from these matters, nor lad the Presi- dent yet determined to relieve him from his present command. Movements of the President During the Day. ‘The President has spent the great portion of to- @ay in company with one of his secretaries engaged 4n business of a private nature. Until twelve o'clock he was in conference with his counsel, Messrs. Stan- bery, Evarts, Curtis and Black, when the answer to be rendered to the summons of the Court of Im- peach was read, and everything put in readi- mess for the commencement of the trial. After the departure of the President's coun- sel he granted interviews to Secretary McCulloch ‘and several gentlemen who were waiting to see him. ‘These visitors having been attended to the President retired from his office, and gave directions to the ‘Usher that he would be unable to see any one else to- @ay. He then proceeded to the Secretary's room, where he spent the remainder of the afternoon. At eight o'clock this evening the President held another levee. The parlors of the White House were more crowded this evening than at any previous occasion this season. All of the Cabinet officers, a large representation of the Foreign Ministers, a great number of army and navy oficers, Senators and Representatives, and @perfect host of citizens generally, were present. @eneral Hancock was present in uniform and stopped during the evening in the reception room. It is thought that the levee on Monday night next will be ‘the last of the season. THE HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT, Trial of President Andrew Johnson, Charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Second Day's Proceedings. UNITED STATRS SENATR Wastunetos, March At one o'clock the Chief Justice entered the Senate chamber by a side door to the left of the Chair and called the Senate to order. ‘The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usnal prociama- tion cormmanding silence, whereupon the Managers appeared at the door. ‘The Sergeant-at-Arms announced the Managers of the Impeachment on the part of the House of Nepre- rematives, and the Cater Justice suid:—The Mana- gers will take the seats assigned to them by the Bente, Messra, Bingham and Bontwell lod the way ap fhe Aisies and took their seats, In thg meantime Menrts. Stanbery, Curtis, Nelson, and Groeshec Pert ws Uae tiated wbeod the Ftean bery occupying the extreme right. ‘The Sergeant-at-Arms then announced the House of Representatives, and the members of the House appeared headed by Mr. Washburne on the arm of Mr. McPherson, Clerk of the House, and took their seats outalde the bar by direction of the Chief Jus- tice, and the Secretary of the Senate then read the minutes of the proceedings of Friday, the 13th inst, Mr. Doolittle was called by the Clerk, and came forward and took the oath, Senator Davis, (dem.) of Ky., said:—Mr. Chief Jus- tice—I rise to make the same proposition to this court that I made to the Senate. I think that now is the appropriate time, before the Senate proceeds to take up the case, 1 therefore submit to the court ® motion in writing. . ‘The SECRETARY read as follows:— Mr. Davis, @ member of the Senate in the Court of Impeachment, moves the court to take this order—that the constitution having invested the Senate with the sole power to try articles of impeach- ment of the President of the United States preferred by the House of Representatives, and, having pro- vided that the Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each State, to be chosen by the Legis- lature thereof: and the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missis- Sippl, Arkansas, Texas Louisiana and. Florida hav. ing each chosen two Senators, who have been ex- cluded from their seats respectively, ordered that the Court of Im ‘hment for the trial of the Presi- dent cannot be legally and constitutionally formed while the Senators from the States aforesaid are thus excluded from the Senate, and which objection con- tnues until Senators from these States are permitted to take their seats by the Senate, subject to all con- stifutional exceptions and objections to their return and qualifications severally. Senator Howanp, (rep.) of Mich.—Mr. President—— The CuieF JusTiceE—The question must be decided without debate. Senator HowaRD—I object to the receiving of the paper. Senator ConnEss—I desire to submit a motion which will meet the case. Imaye thatthe motion be not received, upon which I call for the yeas and nays, Senator Hows, (rep.) of Wis.—I rise to submit a question of order. The Cu1Eer JusTicE—The Senator will state his point of order. Senator HowE—I would ask if the motion offered by the Senator from Kentucky be in order? ‘The CuteF JusticE—The motion comes before the Senate in the form of a motion submitted, made by a member of the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeach- ment. The twenty-third rule requires that all the orders and decisions shall be made and had by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record and without debate, subject, however, to the operation of rule seven. The seventh rule requires the presiding officer to, in the first instance, submit to the Senate without admission all questions of evidence in incl- dental questions; but the same shall, on demand of one-fifth of the members present, be decided by yeas and nays. The question, then, being on a proposi- tion submitted by a Senator under the twenty-third Tule, it is in order. Mr. ConNnEss, (rep.) of Cal,—Mr. President, is the motion submitted by me in order? Cuier JusTiceE—No, sir. ‘The call for the yeas and nays was ordered, and they were called, Messrs. Davis and McCreery only voting “aye.” Messrs. Saulsbury, Bayard and Wade did not vote. So the motion was not agreed to. THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWER. Mr. STANDERY then rose and said:—Mr. Chief Jus- tice, In obedience to an order of this honorabie court, made at the last session, that the answer of the President should be filed to-day, we have it. ready. The counsel for the President, abandoning all other business, some of us quitting our courts, our cases and our clients, have devoted every hour to the consideration: of this case. The labor has been incessant. We have devoted, as I say, not only every hour ordinarily devoted to business, but many required for necessary rest and recreation have been consumed init. Itisa matter of regret that the court did not allow us more time for preparation; nevertheless we hope that the answer will be found in all respects sufficient, such as itis. We are now ready to read and file it. Mr. CurTIs proceeded to read the answer as fol- lows:— In the Senate of the United States, sitting as a Court of Impeachment for the trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, The answer of the said Andrew Jonson, President of the United States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives of the United States: Answer to Article 1—For answer to the first article he says that Edwin M. Stanton was appointed Secre- tary for the Department of War on the 15th day of January, A. D. 1862, by Abraham Lincoln, then Presi- dent of the United States during the first term of his Presidency, and was commissioned, according to the constitution and the laws of the United States, to hold the said office during the pleasure of the Presi- dent; that the office for Secretary for the Department of War was created by an act of the Firat Congress in its first session, passed on the 7th day of August, A. D. 1789, and in and by that act it was provided and enacted that the said Secretary for the Depart- ment of War shall perform and execute such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on and en- trusted to him by the President of the United States agreeably to the constitution relative to the subject within the scope of said department; and furthermore, that the said Secretary shall conduct the business o1 the sald department in such a manner as the Presi- dent of the United States shail from time to time order and instruct. And this respondent, further an- swering, says that by force of the act aforesaid, and by reason of his appointment aforesaid, the said Stanton became the principal officer in one of the executive departments of the government, within the true intent of the second section of the second arti- cle of the constitution of the United States, according: tothe true intent and meaning of that provision of the constitution of the United States, and in accordance with the settled and uniform practice of each and every President of the United States. The said Stan- ton then became, and so long as he should continue to hold the office of Secretary for the Department of War must continue to be, one of the advisers of the President of the United States as well as the person entrusted to act for and represent the President in matters enjoined upon hin or entrusted to him by the President touching the department aforesaid, and for whose conduct in such capacity, subordinate to the President, the President is by the constitution and laws of the United States made responsible, And this respondent, further answering, says he succeeded to the office of President of the United States upon and by reason of the death of Abraham Lincoin, then President of the United States, on the 16th day of April, 1865; and the said Edwin M. Stan- ton was then holding the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, under and by reason of the appointment and commission aforesaid, and not having been removed from the said office by this re- spondent the said Edwin M. Stanton continued to hold the same under the appointment and commis- sion aforesaid, at the pleasure of the President, until the time hereinafter particularly men- tioned, and at no. time received. any aj pointment or commission as above detailed. And this lags gouge further answering, says that on and prior to the Ofth day of August, A. D, 1967, this respondent, the President of the United States, re- sponsible for the conduct of the Secretary for the Department of War, and having the constitutional right to resort to and rely upon the person holding that ofice for advice concerning the great and dim- cult public duties enjoined on the President by the constitution and laws of the United States, became satisiied that he could not allow the said Stanton to continue to hold the office of Secretary for the De- partment of War without hazard of the public inter- est. That the relations between the said Stanton and the President no longer permitted the President to resort to him for advice, or to be, in the judgment of the President, ‘ly responsible for his conduct of the affairs of the Departinent of War as by law required. In accordance with the orders and in- structions of the President, and thereupon by foree of the constitution and laws of the United States, which devolve on the Prest- dent the power and the duty to control the conduct of the business of that executive depart- ment of the government, and by reason of the con- atitutional duty ot the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, this respondent did necessarily consider and did determine that the said Stanton onght no longer hold the said office of Secretary for the Departmentof War, And this re- spondent, by virtue of the wer and authority vested in him as President of the United States, by the constitution and laws of the United States, to give effect to such his decision and deterinination, did, on the fifth day of August, A. D. 1867, address to the said Stanton a note, of which the following is a trae copy:— Sin—Publie considerations of a high character constrain tne to say that your restgnation as Secretary of War will be accepted. ba which note the sald Stanton made the following ep Wan Drrartwent, WASHIOTON, Ang. 5, 1867. Stn—Your note of thie day Nas been received, stating that “public considerations of a high character constrain you to nay that my reelgnation an Secretary of War will be ac: J (io reply 1 have the honor to tay that public ecn- r ns of a high elmracter, which alone have induced ie fain me not the oftice of Secretary of War before ‘next moet- to ing of Congress. Very respectéully yours, LDWIN M. STANTON. ‘This respondent, as President of the United States, thereon of opinion that, having regard to the sary oficial relations and duties of the Becre- 'y for the Department of Warto the President of ihe “United States, according to the coastitn- tion and Jaws of the United States, and having regard to the responsibility of the President for the couduet of the sald Secretary, and having re+ qordt mount excentive authority of the Pink tant bona saior she eanstione § acted on by an President of the United States in st uy it Washington to and inclu President Lincoln, and from the First that the con- dent, as part of the executive power, and as one of the necessary means and instruments of performing the executive duty, expressly imposed on him by the constitution, of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, the pores at any and all times of removing from office all executive officers, for cause to be judged by the President alone. This respondent had, pursuance of the constitution, required the opinion of each principal officer of the ex- ecutive departments upon the question of constitutional executive power and duty, and had been advised by each of them, includin, the said Stanton, Secretary for the Department o! War, that under the constitution of the United States this power was lodged by the constitution in the President of the United St and that consequently it could be lawfully exerci by him, and the Con- gress could not deprive him thereof; and this re- spondent, in his capacity of President of the United States, and because in that capacity he was both enabled and bound to use his best judgment upon this question, did in good faith, and with honest de- sire to arrive at the truth, come to the conclusion and opinion, and did make the same known to the hon- orable the Senate of the United States, by a me: dated on second day of March, 1867 (a true copy whereof is hereunto annexed and marked A), that the power iast mentioned was conferred, aud the duty of exercising it in ft cases was imposed on the President by the constitution of the United States, and that the President could not be deprived of this power or relieved of this duty, nor could the same be vested by law in the President and the Senate jointly, either in part or in whole; and this has ever since remained and w4s the opinion of is respondent at the time when he was forced ag aforesaid to consider and deeide what act or acts should and might lawfully be done by this respon- dent, as President of the United States, to cause the said Stanton to surrender the said office. This re- spondent was also then aware that by the first section of an act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 1867, by a constitutional majority of both houses of Congress, it was enacted as follows:— . That every person holding any civil office to which he has icon appolaied by and. with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office and shall become duly qualified to act therein, {s and shall be entitled to hold such oflice until a suc- cessor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly ualified, except as herein otherwise. provided : provided that the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy and of the Interior, the Postmaster General and ‘the Attorney General shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they may have been ap- pointed; and for one mouth thereafter, aubject wo removal Dy and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This respondent was also aware that this ac. was understood and intended to be an expression of the opinion of the Congress by which that act was passed: that the power to remove the Executive officers for cause might, by law, be taken from the President and vested in him and the Senate jointly; and although this respondent had arrived at aud still retained the opinion above expressed, and verily believed, as he still believes, that the first section of the last mentioned act was, and is, wholly inoperative and void, by reason of its conflict with the constitu- tion of the United States, yet inasmuch as the same had been enacted by the constitutional majority in each of the two houses of that Congress, this re- spondent considered it to be proper to examine and decide whether the particular case of the said Stan- ton, on which it was this respondent’s duty to act, was within or without the terms of that first section of the act, or if within it, whether the President had not the power, according to the terms of the act, to remove the said Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Departinent of War, and having in his capacity of President of the United Slates so examined and considered, did form the opinion that the case of the said Stanton and his tenure of ofice were not affected by the first section of the last named act. And this respondent, further answering, says, that although a case thus existed which, in his judgment, as President of the United States, called for the exercise of the executive power to remove the said Stanton from the oifice of Secre- tary for the Department of War, and although this respondent was of opinion, as is above shown, that under the constitution of the United States the power to remove the said Stanton from the said oMce was vested in the President of the United States; and although this respondent was also of the opinion, as is above shown, that the case of the said Stan- ton was not affected by the first section of the last named act, and although each of the said opinions had been formed by this respondent upon ain actual case requiring him, in his capacity of Presideut of the United States, to come to some Judwment and de- termination thereon; yet this respondent, President of the United States, desired and determined to avoid, if possible, any question of the construc. tion and effect of the sald first section of the last named act, and also the broader question of the ex- ecutive power conferred on the President of the United States by the constitution of the United States to remove one of the principal officers of one of the executive departments. for cause scoming to him sufticient; and this respondent also desired and de- termined that if, from causes over which he could exert no control, it should become absolutely ne- cessary, to raise and have in some way determined either or both of the last named question It Was 1n accordance with the constitution of the United States, and was required of the Presideut thereby, that questions of so much gravity and importance, upon wiich the legislative and exceutive de- partments of the government had disa- greed; which involved powers considered by all branches of the government, during its entire his- tory down to the year 1867, to have been confided by the constitution of the United States to the Presl- dent, and to be necessury for the complete and proper execution of his constitutional duties, and should be in some proper way subiuitted to that ju- dicial department of ihe government entrusted by the constitution with (he power, aad subjected by it to the duty, not only of determining finally the con- struction and efect of all acts of C E88, but by comparing them with the constitutiof of the United States and pronouncing them inoperative when found in condict with that fundamental law which the opie have enacted for the government of all their servants; and to these ends, first, that through the action of the Senate of the United States the absolute duty of the President to substitute some fit person in place of Mr, Stanton as one of his ad- visers, and as a principal, subordinate officer, whose official conduct he was responsible for and had law- ful right to control, might, if possible, be accom- plished without the’ necessity o aleing any one of the questions aforesaid; and second, if this duty could aot be so performed, then that these questions, orsuch of them as might necessarily arise, should be judicially determined in the manner aforesaid, for no other end or purpose. This respondent, President of the United States, on the 12th day of August, 1567, seven days after the reception of the letter of the said Stanton, of the 5th day of August hereinbefore stated, did issue to the said Stanton the order foliowing, viz.:— Exrcurive MANSION, Wastinerox, August 12, 1867, S937 virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by the constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby suspended from office as Secretary of War, ind wil coagy to exercise any and all functions pertaining Lo the sane, You wiil at once transfer to General Ulysses 8. Grant, who has this day been authorized and employed to act as Secretary of War ai interim, all records, books, papers and other pubile property now in’ your custody and ebiarge. ‘The Hon, Ewin M. Staton, Secretary of War. To whieh said order the said Stanton made the following reply:— Wan DrrantMent, Wasmtxoton Orry, Aug. 12, 1867, Srn—Your note of this date has been received informing ‘me that by virtue of the powers vested in you as President by the constitution and laws of the | nited States I am sus- pended from office a# Secretary of War, and will cease to exercise any and all functions pertaining to the same, and also directing me at once to transfer to General Ulysses 8. Grant, who has this day been authorized and a ata act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, pa- pers and other public property now in my custody’ and Charge. Under a sense of public duty I ain compelled to deny ay right under the constitutfon and laws of the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, and without legal eanse to suspend me, from office as Secretary of War, or the exercise of any or ail fanc- tions pertaining to the same, or without sach advice and consent to compel me to transfer to any person the records, books and papers and public property fu my custody an Fec- retary. But inasmuch an the Secretary has been inted ad interim, and bas notified me that he has accepted the ap- ntment, I have no alternative but to submit under protest superior force. To the President. And this respondent further answering says:— ‘That it is provided in and by the second section of an act to regulate the tenure of certain civil officers that the President may suspend an officer from the erformance of the duties of the office heid by him for certain causes therein designated until the next meeting of the Senate and until the case has been acted on by the Senate; that this respondent, os President of the United States, was advised and he verily believed and still belleves that the executive power of removal from ofice confided to him by the constitution aforesaid includes the power of suspen- sion from office at the pleasure of the President. And this respondent, by the order aforesaid, did sua- pend the said Stanton office, not until the next Inecting of the Senate, or until the Senate should have acted upon the case, but by force of the power and authority vested in him by the constitution and laws of the United States indefinitely and at the plea- sure of the Presiden! id the order in form afore- said was made known tothe Senate of the United States on the 12th day of December, A. D. 1967, as Will be more fully hereinafter stated, And this re- spondent, further answering, says that in and by the act of February 13, 1795, it was among other tl nes provided and enacted that, in case of vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, it shail be lawful for the President, in case he shall think it necessary, to authorize any person to per- form the duties of that office until a successor be ap- pointed or such vacancy filed, but not exceeding the term of six months; and this respondent beaty ad- vised and believing that such law was in fall force and not repealed, by an order dated Angust 12, 1867, did enthorive and cmpower Ulysses 8, Grant, General of the Armies of the United States, to act as such Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, in the form in which similar authority hag there. tofore been given, not until the next meeting of the Senate should act on the case, but at the pleasure of the President, subject only to tne limitation of six months in the said last mentioned act contained, ard acopy of the Jast named order was made known to souale of the Mal ed Sfates oa the lth day of De Pic es St eee SE Snes AE camatiet, S. © 100, an wilt He Desotnatien were. fally aforesaid, if it = mempronceet, Sher wear date of the tame, mentioned > wn such urpose ebialh a judicial decision” of ‘the’ sald ques- tions or such of them as might be neces- sary; and _ this mdent, further answer- ing, gays that in x pursuance of his intention and design if le to perform what he to be his imperative duty, to prevent the sald win M, Stanton from longer holding the office of the Secretary for the Department of a same time avoiding if possible any queen. respect- ing the power of removal from the Executive of confided to the President by the constitution of United States; and say juestion respecting the con- struction and effect first section of the satd “act regulating the tenure of certain civil officers,” while he should not by any act of his abandon aud relinquish either a power which he believed the con- stitution had conferred on the President of the United States to enable him to perform the duties of his office or a power designediy lett to him by the first section of the act of Congress last aforesaid, This respondent did, on the 12th day of December, 1867, transmit to the Senate of the United States a scene, § copy of which is hereunto annexed and marked B, wherein he made known the orders afore- said and the reasons which had Induced the same, 80 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 expressed his views Regicg ny! the construction of ‘the said first section of the last mentioned act as respected the power of the President to remove the sald Stanton from the said ofice of Pecceary for the Department of War, well hoping that thi ondent could thus perform what he then believed and still believes to be his imperative duty in reference to the said Stanton without derogat from the poner. which this respondent believ: were confided to the President by the constitution and laws, and without the necessity of raising judl- cially any question respecting the same. And this respondent, further answering, says that this hope not having been realized, the President was com- pelled either to allow the said Stanton to resume the said office and remain therein, contrary to the set- tled convictions of the President, formed as afare- said, respecting the ay confided to him and the duties required of him by the constitution of the United States, and contrary to the opinion formed as aforesaid, that the first seetion of the last men- tioned act dla not affect the case of the said Stan- ton, and contrary tothe fixed belief of the President, that hec uld no longer advise with or trust, or be responsible for the said Stanton or the said ottice 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 a ju- dicial decision the questions affecting the lawful right of the said Stanton to resume the said oflice, or the power of the said Stanton to persist in refusing to quit the said office, if he should persist in actual, uit the same; and to this end o! this respondent id, on the 2ist Ly of February, 1868, 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 F. Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim in the said second article set forth. And this respondent, proceeding an- swer specifically each substantive allegation the said first article, says:—He denies that the said Stan- von, on the 21st day of February, 1868, was lawfully in possession of the said office of Secretary for the Department of War. He denies that the said Stan- ton, on the day last mentioned, was lawfully entitled to hold the said office against the will of the Presi- dent of the United States. He denies that the said order for the removal of the said Stanton was unlaw- fully issued. He denies that the said order was issued with intent to violate the act entitled “An act to reg- ulate the tenure of certain civil officers.” He denies that the said order was a violation of the last men- tioned act. He denies that the said order was a vio- lation of the constitution of the United States, or of any law thereof, or of his oath of office. He denies that the said order was issued with an intent to violate the constitution of the United States, or any law there- of, or this respondent's oath of office, and he respect- fully, but earnestly, insists that not only was it issued by iim in the performance of what he believed to be an imperative oficial duty, but inthe 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 tirst. article, contained in manner and form as the same and therein stated and set forth, does by law constitute a high misdemeanor in office within the true intent and meaning of the constitution of the United States. Answer to Article 2,—-And 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 said second article, hearin, date at Washington, D. C., Fi 1868, ade dressed to Brevet Major G fhomas, Adjutant General United Wash- ington, D. ©, and he admits that the same was so issued without the advice and 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, or any law éthereof, 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 to his answer to said first article for a full statement of the purposes and intentions with which said order was issued, and adopts the same as part of his answer to this articie; and he further denies that there was then and there no vacancy in the said oitice of Secretary for the Department of War, or that he did, then and there, commit or was gnilty of a high misdemeanor in ofl and this respondent maintains and will insist:—First—That at the date and delivery of said writing there was a yacaney — existin in the ofilce of Secre- tary for the epartinent of War, Second— That notwithstanding the Senate of the United States was then ins yfal and according to et regulating the | oMces be held to be @ valid law, no tenure of provision of the same was violated by the tssuing of sald order or by the designation of said Thomas to tary of War ad interim. ; to “Article 3.—And for answer to said third article, this respondent sajs that he abldes by h er to said first and second articles in. so far ame are responsive to the alicgation’ con- in the said third article; an ans’ without here + prays the to tis third article a st ont at length, and as to the new allegation contsived in said third arti- cle, that Unis respondent did appoint the said Thomas to be Secretary forthe Department of War ad m- tertin, this respondent denies that 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 as Secretary for the Department of War ad in- tern, and he denies that the same amounts to an appointinent, and insists that it is only a designation of an officer of that department to act temporarily as Secretary for the Departinent of War ad interim until an appointment should be im: but whether the said written anthority to any yf Aten or to a por authority or designation, this respondent denies that in any sense he did thereby intend to violate the con- stitution of the United Staies, or that he thereby in- tended.to give the said order tie character or eifect of an appointinent, in the constitutional or legal sense of the term. fe farther denies that there’was no vacancy in said oitice of Secretary for the Depart- ment of War existing at the date of said written au thority. Auswer to Article 4.—And for answer to said fourth article this respondent denies that on the 21st day of February, 1864, at Washington aforesaid, or at any other time or place, he did unlawfully con- spire with the said Lorenzo Thomas, or with the said Thomas, or any other person or per- sons, With intent, by intimidation and threat unlawfully to hinder and event the sai Stanton from holding. said ce of Secretary for the Department of ‘War, in violation of the Con- stitution of the United States, or of ti the sald act of Congress in sald artich that he did then and there commit, or was guilty of a high crime in office; on the contrary, therefore, protesting thet the sald Stanton was not then and there lawfully the Secretary of the Department of War ; this renee states that his sole purpose in authorizing the said Thomas to act aa Secretary for the Departinent of War ad interiii, as 1s fully stated in his answer to the said first article, to bring the question of the right of the satd Stanton to hold sald oflice—notwithstanding the said suspension, and now ‘withstanding the aaid order of removal, and notwith- standing the said authority of the sald Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interir—to the test of a final decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in the earliest practicable mode in which the question could be brought before that trilunal, ‘his re- spondent did not conspire or agree with the said omas or any other persons to use intimidation or threats to hinder or prevent the said Stanton from holding the said oitice of Secretary for the Depart- ment of War; nor did this respondent at any time command or advise the said Thomas or any other penton or persons to resort to or use either threats or intimidation for that purpose. The only means in the contemplation or purpose of the respondent tobe used are set forth fully in the said orders of February 21, the first addi to Mr. Stanton and the second to the said Thomas, By the first order the respon- dent notified Mr. Stanton that he was removed from the sald office, and that his finetions as Secretary for the Department of War were to terminate upon the receipt of that order. And he also notified the sald Stanton that the said Thomas had been authorized to act as Secretary for the Department of War ad tnierim, and ordered the said Stanton to transfer to him all the records, books, papers and other public property in his custody and chal and by the second order this respondent no- tified the said Thomas of the removal from ofice of the said Stanton, and authorized him to actas Secre- tary for the Department of War ad interim, and die rected him to immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that oitice and to receive the transfer of ail fie records, books, papers and other public property from Mr. Stanton then tn his custody and charge. Respoudent gave no the same repeating Nn same be taken instructions to the said omas tO age intimidations or threats to enforce oberil- ence 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 the omice, or of the books, papers, records or propert, thereof, The only agency resorted to, of intend to be resorted to, was by means of the said execu- tive orders Las pn obedience; but the Secretary for the Department of War relused to obey these offers and still holds undisturbed possession and custody of that department, and of tie records, ‘books, sapere and other public property therein, Respondent further states that, in execution of the ordera 80 .' this respondent given to the sald Thowae. be, The cald Thomae, nro ceded ja a peace tween this respondent other person or persons d ts, nor is there an allegation as to the nature of said intimidation ani iomas Or to use intimidation and threats, or that Was any agreement to carry there them into execution, or that any step was taken or lagreed to be taken to them into execution; and that the allegation in article that the intent of said conspiracy was to use intimidation and threats is wholly insuMcient, inasmuch as it is not alleged that the said intent formed ‘the basis or be- came a part of any agreement between the sala alleged consp!rators; and furthermore, that there is no all of any conspiracy or agreement to use intimidation or threats. Answer to Article 5.—And for answer to the said fifth article this respondent denies that on the 2ist day of February, 1863, or any other time or times in the same year before the said 2d day of March, 1868, or at any prior or subsequent time, at Was! Ly aforesaid, or at any other pace, this respondent did unlawfully conspire with the said Thomas, or with any other person 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 pur suance of said alleged conspiracy, he did unlawfully attempt to prevent the said Edwin M. Stanton from holding said office of Secretary for the Depart- ment of War, or that he did thereby com- mit or that he was thereby guilty of high — misdemeanor in ___ofilce, | Respondent, Pee that said Stanton was not then and there retary of War, begs leave to refer to his answer Ce to'the fourth article and to his answer given the first article, as to his intent aud purpose in issuing the orders for the removal of Mr. Stanton and the authority given to the sald 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 la 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 attem) to be carried out, or what were the acts done in pursuance thereof, Answer to Article 6,—And for answer to the said sixth article this respondent denies that on the sald Qist day of February, 1863, at Washington aforesaid, or at any other time or place, he did unlawfully con- spire with the said Thomas by force to seize, take or poasess the property of the United States in the De- partment of War, contrary to the provisions of the said acts referred to in the sald article, or either of them, or with intent to violate either of them, Re- spondent, protesting that said Stanton was not then and there retary for the Department of War, not only denies the said conspiracy as charged, but also denies any unlawful intent in reference to the cus- ear and charge of the iar oe 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 ’.e premises. Answer to Article 7.—And for answer to the said seventh article defendant 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 Thomas with tntent unlawfully to seize, take, or possess the property of the United States in the Department of War, with in- tent to violate, or disregard the said act in the seventh article referred to, or that he did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office. Respondent, protesting that the said Stanton was not then and there Secretary for the Department of War, again refers to his former answers in 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. Respondent further takes exception to the suiliciency of the allegations of this article as to the conspiracy alleged upon the same grounds as stated in the ex- ception set forth in his answer to said article fourth. Answer to Article 8.—And for answer to the said eighth articie this respondent denies that on the 2ist day of February, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at any other time and 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 unlawfally to control the disbursements of money appropriated for the miljtary service and for the Department of War. This respondent, protesting that there wasa vacancy in the said office of Secretary for the Depart- ment of War, admits 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 Con- gress; on the contrary this premenlene 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 continue to hold the said office of Secretary of War to a final decision before the Supreme Court of the United States, as has been herembefore set forth, and he prays the same benefit from his answer in the premi- ren if the same were here again repeated at jength. Ansirer to Articte 9.—And for answer to the said ninth article the respondent states that, on the said 22d day of February, 168, the following note was ad- dressed to the said Emory by the private secretary of the respondent:— EXrcurtive MANSION, WasmnoTon, D. 0.) Feb, 22 1588, GeNFRat—The President directa ‘ine’ to say that he will be pleased ve you call upon him as early as practicable. apecttully nn truly yours, WILLIAM G. MOORE, United States Army. General Emory called at the Executive mansion according to this request. The object of respondent was to be advised by General Emory, as Commander of the Department of Washington, what changes had been made tn the military atfairs of the depart- ment. Respondent had been informed that varions changes had been made which in nowise had been brought notice or reported to him from the Department of War or from any other quarter, and desired to ascertain the facts, After said Emory had explained in detail the changes which had taken place said Emory called the atiention of respondent ton general order, which he referred to, and which this respondent then sent for, when it was produced. It is as lollows:— WAR DZraRrMent, ADJUTANT GRNTRAL!S OFricr, WASHINGTON, D. ©. March 14, 1987. GENERAL ORDER NO. 17. ‘Tho following acta of Congress are published for the infor- mation and government of ail concern (Public Docurnent No. ‘An act ma'sing appropriations for the of the army for the yenr. ending June 20, 1808, and for other purposes, SKcTION 2.—And be it farther enacted, that the headquar- ters of the General of the Army aball be at the city of Wash- ington, and all orders and instructions relating to military operations, insued by the President or Secretary of War, shall be issued through the General of the Army, and in case INty 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 sald headquarters, except at his own request, without the ‘evious approval of the Senate; and any orders or instruc ions relating to military operations fesued contrary to Foquirements of this section shall, be null and voll; and any officer who shall issue orders or instructions contrary to the provisions of thi section shall be deemed guilty of misde- Meanor in office; and any ofllcer of the army who shall trans- mult, convey or obey any orders or instructions so ianued con- trary to the previsions of thia section, knowing that each orders were so featied, shall be lable to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than twenty years upon conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction. of his inal 4 March 2 1867. Penune SECRETARY OF WAR. ELD, TowNSEND, Asalatant Adjutant General, General Emory not only called the attention of re- spondent to this order, bat to the fact that it was in conformity with a section contained in an appropria- tion act passed by Congress, Respondent, after read- ing the order, observe “This is uot in accordance with the constitution of the United States, which makes me Commander-in-Chief of the Army Navy, or of the lanj of the commission which you hold. General Emory then stated that this order had inct respondent's approval. Respondent then said, in snbstance:—Am f to understand that the President of the United States cannot give an order hut through the General-in-Chicf, or General Grant?’ General Emory again reiterated the state- ment that it had met respondent's approval, and that it was the opinion of some of the leading lawyers of the country that this order was constitu. tional. Withsome further conversation respondent then inquired the names of the lawyers who had given the opinion, and he taentioned the names of two. Respondent then said that the object of the law waa very evident, referring to the clause in the — act, upon which the order purported to be based. This, according to the respondent's recoilection, was the substance of the conversation with General Emory. Respondent denies that any allegations in the said article of any instructions or declaration given to the said Emory then or at any other time contrary to or in addition to whatis here- inbefore set forth dre true. Respondent denies that Jn sald conversation with Emory he had any other intent than to express the opinions then given to the sald Emory; nor did he then or at any 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 inducement to the said Emory to violate any law. What this respondent then said to General Emory. was neey, the expression of an opinion which he then fully believed to be sound, and which ho yet believes to be $0, and that is, that by the ex- press provisions of the constitution tHis respondent ‘a4 President is made the commander-in-Chief of the urtntes of the United States, and as such is to be respected, and that his orders, whether issued through the War Department or thtough the General- in-Clilef, or by any o' channel of communication, are entitled th respec obedience; and that such constitutional power cannot be taken from him by vir- tue of any act of Congress. Res) nt does, therefore, deny tat by the expression of auch opinion he did commit and was gulity of high misdemeanor in office; and thus respondent doth farther say, that the said article nine lays no foundation whatever for the conclusion stated in the said article, that the bo pn by reason of the alle- gations therein contained, was guilty of o high misdemeanor in office, in refereuce to the statement made by General Fimory, that this re- spondent had approved of said act of Congress con- taining the section referred to, the respondent admits that his formal approval was given to, said act, but accompanied the same by the following message adilressed and sent with tie act to the House of Representatives, ta which House the said act originated, dent:— To THE Hover oF REPRTSENTATIVED—Tho net entitled Pop hae sy | sorreerare fe aupport of the army For ue venr endtin dane M0, I an er wiher purpowes.” and from which it came to respon-- 3 ~ to which I must call attention. These contained in the second section, which in cer- deprive the President of his constitutional funetions as Commander-in-Chief of the army, and im the Sixth section, which denies to ten States of the Union their constitutional right to protect themselves in any emergency. by means of thelr own’ militia, ‘These provisions arv out {a an appropriation, bul I am com lied to defeat necessary appropriations withhold mj tare from’ the act’ Pressed by. these considerations £ constrained to return the bill with my signatare, but to ace company it with my earnest protest against the sections which I have indicates, “WASHINGTON, D, C., March 2, 1987." Respondent, therefore, did no more than to exe preas to sald Emory the same opinion which he had 80 expressed to the House of Representatives. Answer to Article 10,—And in answer to the tenth article and specifications thereon the respondent Says that on the Lith and 16th days of August, in the year 1868, a political convention of delegates from allor most of the States and ‘Territories of the Union was held in the city of Philadel under the name and style of the National Unton wen- tion, for the purpose of maintaining and advancing certain political views and opinions before the people of the United States, and for their support and adoption in the exercise of the constitutional suf- frage, in the elections of representatives and dele- gates in Congress, which were soon (o occur in mal of the States and Territories of the Union, whic! sald convention, in the course of its proceedings and in furtherance of the objects of the same, adopted a “declaration of principles,” and ‘an ad~ dress to the people of the United States,” and ap- pointed a committee of two of its members from State, and of one from each Territory, and one from the District of Columbia, to walt upom the President of the United States and present to him a@ copy of the proceedings of the convention; that on the 18th day of said month of August th committee waited upon the President of the United States at the Executive Mansion, and was reveived be him in one of the rooms thereof, and by their chairman, Hon. Reverdy Johnson, then and now & Senator of the United States, speaking in their behal’, presented a copy of the proceedings of the couven- tion and addressed the President of the United States in a speech, of which a copy, according to a pub- lished report of the same, and, as the respondent be- lleves, substantially a correct report, is hereto an- nexed as a part of this answer and marked “EXx- hibit ©.” That thereupon, and in reply to the ad- dress of sald committee by their chairman, tils respon- dent addressed the said committee so waiting upon him in one of the rooms of the Executive Mansion, and this respondent believes that this, his address to said committee, is the occasion referred to in the first ification of the tenth article. But this respondent joes not admit that the Rasneeees. therein set forth as if extracts from a speech or address of this respond- ent upon such occasion correctly or justly present his: speech or address on such occasion; but on the con- trary, this respondent demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said tirst specification thereof to contain allega- tion of matter cognizable by this honorable court as a high misdemeaner in ofice within the intent and meaning of the constituiton of the United States and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occa-" sign, Which this respondent denies that said article and specification contains or correctly or justly repre- sents. And this respondent further, answering the tenth article and the specifications thereof, says that at Cleveland, in the state of Ohio, and on the third day of September, in the year 1866, he was attended by a large assemblage of his fellow citizens, and deference and obedience to their call and deman he addressed them upon matters of pants and politi-: cal consideration, and this respondent believes that said occasion and address are referred to in th second specification of the tenth article; but this re- spondent does not admit that the passages therel set forth as if extracts from a speech of this es dent on said occasion curnoy or justly present hi speech or address upon said occasion, but on th contrary this Pesponnent demands and insists that! if this honorable court shall deem the said) article and the sald second specification thereof, to contain allegations of matter cognizable} by this honorabie court as a high misdemeanor int oitice within the intent and meaning of the constitu. tion of the United States, and shall receive or allow! proof in support of the same, that proof shall be) reguired to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occasion, which this re- spondent denies that said article and specification’ contains, or correctly or justly represents; and thas! this respondent, further answering the tenth articie! and the specifications thereof, says that at St. lee in the State of Missouri, and on the $th day of Sep- tember, in the year 1865, he was attended by a nu-| merous assemblage of his fellow citizeas, and ti deference and obedience to their call and demand he addressed them upon matters of public! and political consideration, ond this respondent believes that said occasion and address are to in the third specification of the tenth article; but this respondent does not admit that the passages therein set forth as if extracts from a speech of thi respondent on said occasion correctly or justly pre sent his speech or address upon said occasions but on the contrary this respondent demands and tn~ sists that if this honorable court shall deem the said} article and the said third specification thereof to) contain allegations of matter cognizable by this’ honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office within the intent and meaning of the constitution’ , of the United States, and shall receive or allow, proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that the said! article and specification contains or correc'ly or; justly represents; and this respondent, fuitier an- swering the tenth article, protesting that he has not been unmindfal of the high duties of his office or of; the harmony or courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive aud legisia- tive branches of the government of the United States,| denies that he has ever intended or designed to seb, aside the righttul authority or powers of Congress, or , attempted to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, conicimpt or reproach the Congress of the Unt States or either braneh thereof, or to Impair or destro; the regard or respect of all or any of the gov People of the United States for the Congress or the rightful legistative power thereof; or to excite the odium or resentment of all or any of the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and Rodgers | enacied. This re- spondent further says that at all thues he has in his official acts as Presiaent recognized the authority of the several Congresses of the United Siates as constl- tuted and organized during his administration of the oitice of President of the United States. And this re- spondent, further answering, says that he has from time to time, under his constitutional right and duty as President of the United States, communicated to Congress his views audi opinions in regard to such acts or resolutions thereof, as being submitted to him as President of the United States, in pursuance of the constitu- tion, seemed to this respondent to require such com- munication, and he has from time to time, in the exercise of that freedom of speech which belongs to him as a citizen of the United States, and in his po~ litical relations as President of the United States to the people of the United States, is, upon fit occusions, aduty of the highest obligation, expressed to hi fellow citizens his views and opinions respecting the, measures and proceedings of Congress; and that im such addresses to his fellow citizens, and in such his communications to Congress, he has expressed his views, opinions and judgment of and concerning tia actual constitution of the two houses of Congress, without representation therein of certain ‘States of the Union, und the effect that, in wisdom and) justice, and the opinion and judg~ ment ' of this respondent, Congress, in tw legislation aud proceedings should give to this pol~ tical circumstance, and whatsoever he has thus commanicated to Congress or addresecd to his fellow citizens or any assemblage thereof, this re- spondent says was and is within and according to his right and privilege as an Aimer citizen and his right and duty as President of the United States. ‘And this respondent, not waiving or at ail disparag- ing his right of freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, as hereinbefore or hereinafter more par- ticularly set forth, but claiming and insisting upon the same, further answering the sald tenth article, says that the views and opinions expressed by this respondent in his said addresses to the assemblages of his fetlow citizens, as in said articie or in tuis answer thereto mentioned, are not and were nay ins tended to be other or different from those exp by him in his communications to Congress; thas the eieven States lately in insurrection never had ceased to be States of the Union, and that they were then entitled to representation in Congress by loyal Representatives aud Senators, as fully as the other States of the Union; and that consequently the Con- gress, as then constituted, ‘was not in fact a Congres Of all the States, but a Congress of only a part of the, States. ny Lm yee always protesting against the unauthorized exclusion therefrom of the said eleven States, nevertheless gave his assent to all laws passed by said Kam hang which did not in his opinion and judgment viol the constitution, exeret his constitutional authority of returning bilis to Congress with his tions when they a my him to be wnconatitutional or inexpedient. And further this lent has also expressed this opinion, both in his communications to Congress. and in his addresses to the people, that the policy opted by Ce eas in reference to the States lately in insurrection did not tend to peace, harmony or. union, but, on the contrary, did tend to disunion apd the permanent disruption of the States; and that im; foliowing Its kid policy laws had been passed by; Congress in violation of the fundamental princ Lees! of the government, and which tended to consolida~ tion and despotisma; and such being his deliberate opinions, he would have felt himself unmindful of the high duties of his ofice if he had failed to express them fh his communications to Congress or in his addresses to the people when called upon by them to Un ad his opinions on matters of public and politt~ cal consideration. And this Fesponden’, further answering the tenth article, says tfat he has always claimed and insiated, and now claims and insists, tat both tn his’ personal and pri- vate capacity of @ citizen of the United 8 and in the political relations of the President of the United States to the people of the Unie whose servant under the duties and responsibitt of the constitution of the United States the President of the United States {3, and sould always remain, this respondent had and has the fall right and in his office of President of the. United States is held to the high duty of forming and on fit occasions ex- jons of and concerning the legislation ‘eat, proposed oF completed, in respect of ite wisd expediency, justice, worthiness, ol purposes sud) public and tical motives: ene dencies, avd within and part of such right and duty to form, and, on ft occasions, G opinions of and Cg yg ‘torn a and conduct, views, put Aa, and tcadeneles of all wen engaged in the CONTINUED ON TENTH PAGE.