Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

lating the tenure of certain civil offices," while States. He denies that the said order for the he should not, by any act of his, abandon and removal of the said Stanton was unlawfully relinquish, either a power which he believed issued. He denies that the said order was issued the Constitution had conferred on the President with intent to violate the act entitled “An act of the United States, to enable him to perform to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices." the duties of his office, or a power designedly He denies that the said order was a violation of left to him by the first section of the act of tbe last-mentioned act. He denies that the said Congress last aforesaid, this respondent did, on order was a violation of the Constitution of the the 12th day of December, 1867, transmit to the United States, or of any law thereof, or of his Senate of the United States a message, a copy oath of office. He denies that the said order was wheroof is hereunto annexed and marked B, issued with an intent to violate the Constitution wherein he made known the orders aforesaid of the United States, or any law thereof, or thi, and the reasons which had induced the same, so respondent's oath of office; and he respectfully, far as this respondent then considered it mate- but earnestly, insists that not only was it issued rial and necessary that the same should be set by him in the performance of what he believed forth, and reiterated his views concerning the to be an imperative official duty, but in the perconstitutional power of removal vested in the formance of what this honorable court will conPresident, and also expressed his views concern- sider was, in point of fact, an imperative official ing the construction of the said first section of duty. And he denies that any and all substanthe last-mentioned act, as respected the power tive matters in the first article contained, in of the President to remove the said Stanton manner and form as the same are therein stated from the said office of Secretary for the Depart- and set forth, do by law constitute a high misment of War, well hoping that this respondent demeanor in office, within the true intent and could thus perform what he then believed, and meaning of the Constitution of the United States. still believes, to be his imperative duty in refer

ANSWER TO ARTICLE II. ence to the said Stanton, without derogating

$ And for answer to the second article, this resfrom the powers which this respondent believed

"pondent says, that he admits he did issue and were confided to the President by the Constitution and laws, and without the necessity of

12 deliver to said Lorenzo Thomas the said writing

2. | set forth in said second article, bearing date at raising judicially any questions respecting the Washington, District of Columbia. February 21. same. And this respondent, further answering, says,

1868, addressed to Brevet Major General Lorenzo

ing, says: Thomas, Adjutant General United States army, that this hope not having been realized, the

Washington, District of Columbia, and he further President was compelled either to allow the said

admits that the same was so issued without the Stanton to resume the said office and remain

advice and consent of the Senate of the United therein, contrary to the settled convictions of

States, then in session ; but he denies that he the President, formed as aforesaid, respecting

thereby violated the Constitution of the United the powers confided to him and the duties re

States, or any law thereof, or that he did thereby quired of him by the Constitution of the United

intend to violate the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the opinion formed as

States or the provisions of any act of Congress; aforesaid, that the first section of the last-men

and this respondent refers to his answer to said tioned act did not affect the case of the said

first article for a full statement of the purposes Stanton, and contrary to the fixed belief of the

and intentions with which said order was issued, President that he could no longer advise with

m and adopts the same as part of his answer to this or trust or be responsible for the said Stanton,

H article ; and he further denies that there was in the said office of Secretary for the Depart.

then and there no vacancy in the said office of ment of War, or else he was compelled to take

Secretary for the Department of War, or that he such steps as might, in the judgment of the

did then and there commit or was guilty of a ent, be lawful and necessary to raise, for

| high misdemeanor in office; and this respondent udicial decision, the questions affecting the

maintains and will insist: wawful right of the said Stanton to resume the

1. That at the date and delivery of said writsaid office, or the power of the said Stanton to

ing there was a vacancy existing in the office of persist in refusing to quit the said office, if he

Secretary for the Department of War. should persist in actually refusing to quit the

1 2 . That, notwithstanding the Senate of the same; and to this end, and to this end only, this

United States was then in session, it was lawful respondent did, on the 21st day of February,

and according to long and well-established 1868, issue the order for the removal of the said

usage to empower and authorize the said Thomas Stanton, in the said first article mentioned and

to act as Secretary of War ad interim. set forth, and the order authorizing the said

3. That if the said act regulating the tenure Lorenzo Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad

of civil offices be held to be a valid law, no pro. interim, in the said second article set forth.

vision of the same was violated by the issuing And this respondent, proceeding to answer

this respondent, proceeding. to answer of said order or by the designation of said Thomas specifically each substantial allegation in the baid first article, says: He denies that the said

to act as Secretary of War ad interim. Stanton, on the 21st day of February, 1868, was

ANSWER TO ARTICLE III. lawfully in possession of the said office of Secre. And for answer to said third article, this res. tary for the Department of War. He denies pondent says, that he abides by his answer to that the said Stanton, on the day last mentioned, said first and second articles, in so far as the was lawfully entitled to hold the said office same are responsive to the allegations contained against the will of the President of the United in the said third article, and, without here again

repeating the same answer, prays the same be of February 21, the first addressed to Mr. Stantaken as an answer to this third article as fully ton and the second to the said Thomas. as if here again set out at length; and as to By the first order, the respondent notified Mr. the new allegation contained in said third article, Stanton that he was removed from the said office, that this respondent did appoint the said Thomas and that his functions as Secretary for the Deto be Secretary for the Department of War ad partment of War were to terminate upon the interim, this respondent denies that he gave any receipt of that order; and he also thereby noti. other authority to said Thomas than such as fied the said Stanton that the said Thomas had appears in said written authority set out in said been authorized to act as Secretary for the Dearticle, by which he authorized and empowered partment of War ad interim, and ordered the said said Thomas to act as Secretary for the Depart. Stanton to transfer to him all the records, books, ment of War ad interim; and he denies that the papers, and other public property in his custody same amounts to an appointment, and insists and charge; and, by the second order, this resthat it is only a designation of an officer of that pondent notified the said Thomas of the removal Department to act temporarily as Secretary for from office of the said Stanton, and authorized the Department of War ad interim, until an him to act as Secretary for the Department of appointment should be made. But, whether the War ad interim, and directed him to immediately said written authority amounts to an appoint- enter upon the discharge of the duties pertainment or to a temporary authority or designation, ing to that office, and to receive the transfer of this respondent denies that in any sense he did all the records, books, papers, and other public thereby intend to violate the Constitution of the property from Mr. Stanton then in his custody United States, or that he thereby intended to and charge. give the said order the character or effect of an Respondent gave no instructions to the said appointment in the constitutional or legal sense Thomas to use intimidation or threats to enforce of that term. He further denies that there was obedience to these orders. He gave him no no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the De-authority to call in the aid of the military or partment of War existing at the date of said any other force to enable him to obtain poswritten authority.

session of the office, or of the books, papers, ANSWER TO ARTICLE IV.

records, or property thereof. The only agency And for answer to said fourth article, this res- resorted to or intended to be resorted to was by pondent denies that on the said 21st day of Feb- means of the said executive orders requiring ruary, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at any obedience. But the Secretary of the Depart. other time or place, he did unlawfully conspire ment of War refused to obey these orders, and with the said Lorenzo Thomas, or with the said still holds undisturbed possession and custody Thomas and any other person or persons, with of that Department, and of the records, books, intent, by intimidations and threats, unlawfully papers, and other public property therein. Reto hinder and prevent the said Stanton from spondent further states that, in execution of the holding said office of Secretary for the Depart. orders so by this respondent given to the said ment of War, in violation of the Constitution Thomas, he, the said Thomas, proceeded in a of the United States, or of the provisions of the peaceful manner to demand of the said Stanton said act of Congress in said article mentioned, a surrender to him of the public property in the or that he did then and there commit or was said Department, and to vacate the possession of guilty of a high crime in office. On the con- the same, and to allow him, the said Thomas, trary thereof, protesting that the said Stanton peaceably to exercise the duties devolved upon was not then and there lawfully the Secretary him by authority of the President. That, as for the Department of War, this respondent this respondent has been informed and believes, states that his sole purpose in authorizing the the said Stanton peremptorily refused obedience said Thomas to act as Secretary for the Depart to the orders so issued." Upon such refusal, no ment of War ad interim was, as is fully stated force or threat of force was used by the said in his answer to the said first article, to bring Thomas, by authority of the President or otherthe question of the right of the said Stanton to wise, to enforce obedience, either then or at any hold said office, notwithstanding his said sus- subsequent time. pension, and notwithstanding the said order of This respondent doth here except to the suffremoval, and notwithstanding the said authority ciency of the allegations contained in said fourth of the said Thomas to act as Secretary of War article, and states for ground of exception, that ad interim, to the test of a final decision by the it is not stated that there was any agreement Supreme Court of the United States, in the between this respondent and the said Thomas, earliest practicable mode by which the question or any other person or persons, to use intimida. could be brought before that tribunal.

tion and threats, nor is there any allegation as This respondent did not conspire or agree with to the nature of said intimidation and threats, the said Thomas, or any other person or persons, or that there was any agreement to carry them to use intimidation or threats to hinder or pre- into execution, or that any step was taken or vent the said Stanton from holding the said office agreed to be taken to carry them into execuof Secretary for the Department of War, nor tion, and that the allegation in said article that did this respondent at any time command or the intent of said conspiracy was to use intim.advise the said Thomas or any other person or idation and threats is wholly insufficient, inaspersons to resort to or use either threats or in- much as it is not alleged that the said intent timidations for that purpose. The only means formed the basis or become a part of any agreein the contemplation or purpose of respondentment between the said alleged conspirators, and, to be used are set forth fully in the said orders furthermore, that there is no allegation of any

conspiracy or agreement to use intimidation or Departmeor of War, again refers to his former threats.

answers, in so far as they are applicable, to show ANSWER TO ARTICLE V.

the intent with which he proceeded in the premAnd for answer to the said fifth article, this ises, and prays equal benefit therefrom as if the respondent denies that on the said 21st day of same were here again fully repeated. Respond. February, 1868, or at any other time or times in ept further takes exception to the sufficiency of the same year before the said 2d day of March, the allegations of this article as to the conspiracy 1868, or at any prior or subsequent time, at alleged, upon the same grounds as stated in the Washington aforesaid, or at any other place, this exception set forth in his answer to said article respondent did unlawfully conspire with the fourth. said Thomas, or with any other person or per

ANSWER TO ARTICLE VIII. bons, to prevent or hinder the execution of the And for answer to the said eighth article, this said act entitled “An act regulating the tenure respondent denies that on the 21st day of Febof certain civil offices," or that, in pursuance of ruary, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at any said alleged conspiracy, he did unlawfully at other time and place, he did issue and deliver to tempt to prevent the said Edwin M. Stanton the said Thomas the said letter of authority set from hoiding said office of Secretary for the De- forth in the said eighth article, with the intent partment of War, or that he did thereby commit, . unlawfully to control the disbursements of the or that he was thereby guilty of, a high misde money appropriated for the military service and meanor in office. Respondent, protesting that for the Department of War. This respondent, said Stanton was not then and there Secretary

protesting that there was a vacancy in the office for he Department of War, begs leave to refer of Secretary for the Department of War, admits to his answer given to the fourth article and to

to the fourth article and to that he did issue the said letter of authority, and his answer given to the first article, as to his in- he denies that the same was with any unlawful tent and purpose in issuing the orders for the intent whatever, either to violate the Constituremoval of Mr. Stanton and the authority given tion of the United States or any act of Congress. to the said Thomas, and prays equal benefit On the contrary, this respondent again affirms tberefrom as if the same were here again re. that his sole intent was to vindicate his authority peated and fully set forth.

as President of the United States, and by peaceAnd this respondent excepts to the sufficiency | ful means to bring the question of the right of of the said fifth article, and states his ground the said Stanton to continue to hold the said office for such exception, that it is not alleged by what of Secretary of War to a final decision before the means or by what agreement the said alleged Supreme Court of the United States, as has been conspiracy was formed or agreed to be carried hereinbefore set forth: and be prays the same out, or in what way the same was attempted to benefit from his answer in the premises as if the be carried out, or what were the acts done in same were here again repeated at length. pursuance thereof.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE IX.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE VI.

And for answer to the said ninth article the res. And for answer to the said sixth article, this pondent states that on the said 22d day of Feb. respondent denies that on the said 21st day of ruary, 1868, the following note was addressed February, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at to the said Emory by the private secretary of any other time or place, he did unlawfully con- respondent: spire with the said Thomas by force to seize,

EXECUTIVE MANSION, take, or possess, the property of the United

WASHINGTON, DC., February 22, 1868. States in the Department of War, contrary to be

GENERAL: The President directs me to say that he will

be pleased to havo you call upon bim'as early as practicable. the provisions of the said acts referred to in the

Respectfully and truly, yours, said article, or either of them, or with intent to

WILLIAM G. MOORE, violate either of them. Respondent, protesting

United States Army. that said Stanton was not then and there Secre

General Emory called at the Executive Mantary for the Department of War, not only denies sion according to this request. The object of the said conspiracy as charged, but also denies respondent was to be advised by General Emory. any unlawful intent in reference to the custody | as commander of the department of Washington, and charge of the property of the United States / what changes had been made in the military in the said Department of War, and again refers

affairs of the department. Respondent had been to his former answers for a full statement of bis

informed that various changes had been made, intent and purpose in the premises.

which in nowise had been brought to his

notice or reported to him from the Department ANSWER TO ARTICLE VII.

of War, or from any other quarter, and desired And for answer to the said seventh article, I to ascertain the facts. After the said Emory respondent denies that on the said 21st day of had explained in detail the changes which had February, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at taken place, said Emory called the attention of any other time and place, he did unlawfully con- respondent to a general order which he referred spire with the said Thomas with intent unlaw- to and which this respondent then sent for,when fully to seize, take, or possess the property of the it was produced. It is as follows: United States in the Department of War with

eral Orders No. 17.) intent to violate or disregard the said act in the

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, sard seventh article referred to, or that he did

WASHINGTOX, March 14, 1867. then and there commit a high misdemeanor in! The following acts of Congress are published for the in. office. Respondent, protesting that the said

information and government of all concerned :

II-PUBLIC-Vo. 85. Stanton was not then and there Secretary for the AN ACT making approp:iations for the support of the

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

conspiracy or agreement to use intimidation or Department of War, again refers to his former threats.

answers, in so far as they are applicable, to show ANSWER TO ARTICLE V.

the intent with which he proceeded in the premAnd for answer to the said fifth article, this ises, and prays equal benefit therefrom as if the - respondent denies that on the said 21st day of same were here again fully repeated. Respond.

February, 1868, or at any other time or times in ent further takes exception to the sufficiency of the same year before the said 2d day of March, the allegations of this article as to the conspiracy

1868, or at any prior or subsequent time, at alleged, upon the same grounds as stated in the - Washington aforesaid, or at any other place, this exception set forth in his answer to said article

respondent did unlawfully conspire with the fourth. : said Thomas, or with any other person or per

ANSWER TO ARTICLE VIII. sons, to prevent or hinder the execution of the And for answer to the said eighth article, this said act entitled “An act regulating the tenure respondent denies that on the 21st day of Feb. of certain civil offices," or that, in pursuance of ruary, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at any

said alleged conspiracy, he did unlawfully at other time and place, he did issue and deliver to - tempt to prevent the said Edwin M. Stanton the said Thomas the said letter of authority set

from hoiding said office of Secretary for the De- forth in the said eighth article, with the intent partment of War, or that he did thereby commit, unlawfully to control the disbursements of the or that he was thereby guilty of, a high misde

money appropriated for the military service and meanor in office. Respondent, protesting that for the Department of War. This respondent, said Stanton was not then and there Secretary protesting that there was a vacancy in the office for he Department of War, begs leave to refer of Secretary for the Department of War, admits to his answer given to the fourth article and to that he did issue the said letter of authority, and his answer given to the first article, as to his in- he denies that the same was with any unlawful tent and purpose in issuing the orders for the intent whatever, either to violate the Constituremoval of Mr. Stanton and the authority given tion of the United States or any act of Congress. to the said Thomas, and prays equal benefit On the contrary, this respondent again affirms therefrom as if the same were here again re. that his sole intent was to vindicate his authority peated and fully set forth.

as President of the United States, and by peaceAnd this respondent excepts to the sufficiency ful means to bring the question of the right of of the said fifth article, and states his ground the said Stanton to continue to hold the said office for such exception, that it is not alleged by what of Secretary of War to a final decision before the means or by what agreement the said alleged Supreme Court of the United States, as has been conspiracy was formed or agreed to be carried herein before set forth; and he prays the same. out, or in what way the same was attempted to benefit from his answer in the premises as if the be carried out, or what were the acts done in same were here again repeated at length. parsuance thereof.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE IX.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE VI.

And for answer to the said ninth article the resAnd for answer to the said sixth article, this pondent states that on the said 22d day of Feb. respondent denies that on the said 21st day ofruary, 1868, the following note was addressed February, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at to the said Emory by the private secretary of any other time or place, he did unlawfully con- respondent: spire with the said Thomas by force to seize,

EXECUTIVE MANSION, take, or possess, the property of the United

WASHINGTON, DC., February 22, 1868,

GENERAL: The President directs me to say that ho will States in the Department of War, contrary to

be pleased to havo you call upon him as early as practicable. the provisions of the said acts referred to in the

Respectfully and truly, yours, said article, or either of them, or with intent to

WILLIAM G. MOORE, violate either of them. Respondent, protesting

United States Army. that said Stanton was not then and there Secre

General Emory called' at the Executive Man. tary for the Department of War, not only denies sion according to this request. The object of the said conspiracy as charged, but also denies respondent was to be advised by General Emory. any unlawful intent in reference to the custody as comman

| as commander of the department of Washington, and charge of the property of the United States

what changes had been made in the military in the said Department of War, and again refers

| affairs of the department. Respondent had been to his former answers for a full statement of his

| informed that various changes had been made, intent and purpose in the premises.

which in nowise had been brought to his

notice or reported to him from the Department ANSWER TO ARTICLE VII.

of War, or from any other quarter, and desired And for answer to the said seventh article,

to ascertain the facts. After the said Emory respondent denies that on the said 21st day of had explained in detail the changes which had February, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at taken place, said Emory called the attention of any other time and place, he did unlawfully con- respondent to a general order which he referred spire with the said Thomas with intent unlaw. to and which this respondent then sent for, when fully to seize, take, or possess the property of the it was produced. It is as follows: United States in the Department of War with

[General Orders No. 17.) intent to violate or disregard the said act in the

WAR DEPARTMENT. ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, sard seventh article referred to, or that he did

WASHINGTOX, March 14, 1867. then and there commit a high misdemeanor in The following acts of Congress are published for the in.

formation and government of all concerned : office. Respondent, protesting that the said to

II-PUBLIC_No. 85. Stanion was not then and there Secretary for the AN ACT making appropriations for the support of the

« AnteriorContinuar »