Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices." He denies that the said order was a violation of the last-mentioned act. He denies that the said order was a violation 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 thereof, or thi respondent's oath of office; and he respectfully, but earnestly, insists that not only was it issue by him in the performance of what he believed to be an imperative official duty, but in the 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 matters in the first article contained, in manner and form as the same are therein stated and set forth, do by law constitute a high misdemeanor in office, within the true intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

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 the duties of his office, or a power designedly left 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 message, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and marked B, wherein he made known the orders aforesaid and the reasons which had induced the same, so far as this respondent then considered it material and necessary that the same should be set forth, and reiterated his views concerning the constitutional power of removal vested in the President, and also expressed his views concerning the construction of the said first section of the last-mentioned act, as respected the power of the President to remove the said Stanton from the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, well hoping that this respondent could thus perform what he then believed, and still believes, to be his imperative duty in reference to the said Stanton, without derogating from the powers which this respondent believed were confided to the President by the Consti-pondent says, that he admits he did issue and tution and laws, and without the necessity of raising judicially any questions respecting the

same.

And this respondent, further answering, says, that this hope not having been realized, the President was compelled either to allow the said Stanton to resume the said office and remain therein, contrary to the settled convictions of the President, formed as aforesaid, respecting the powers 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 section of the last-mentioned act did not affect the case of the said Stanton, and contrary to the fixed belief of the President that he could no longer advise with or trust or be responsible for the said Stanton, in the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, or else he was compelled to take such steps as might, in the judgment of the

dent, be lawful and necessary to raise, for adicial decision, the questions affecting the awful right of the said Stanton to resume the said office, or the power of the said Stanton to persist in refusing to quit the said office, if he should persist in actually refusing to quit the same; and to this end, and to this end only, this respondent did, on the 21st day of February; 1868, issue the order for the removal of the said Stanton, in the said first article mentioned and set forth, and the order authorizing the said Lorenzo Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, in the said second article set forth.

And this respondent, proceeding to answer specifically each substantial allegation in the said first article, says: He denies that the said Stanton, 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 Stanton, on the day last mentioned, was lawfully entitled to hold the said office against the will of the President of the United

ANSWER TO ARTICLE II.

And for answer to the second article, this res

set forth in said second article, bearing date at deliver to said Lorenzo Thomas the said writing Washington, District of Columbia, February 21, Thomas, Adjutant General United States army, 1868, addressed to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Washington, District of Columbia, and he further 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 thereby violated the Constitution of the United States, or any law thereof, or that he did thereby intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or the provisions of any act of Congress; and this respondent 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 article; and he further denies that there was then and there no vacancy in the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, or that he did then and there commit or was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office; and this respondent

maintains and will insist:

1. That at the date and delivery of said writing there was a vacancy existing in the office of Secretary for the Department of War.

United States was then in session, it was lawful 2. That, notwithstanding the Senate of the and according to long and well-established usage to empower and authorize the said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim.

of civil offices be held to be a valid law, no pro3. That if the said act regulating the tenure vision of the same was violated by the issuing of said order or by the designation of said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE III.

And for answer to said third article, this respondent says, that he abides by his answer to said first and second articles, in so far as the same are responsive to the allegations contained in the said third article, and, without here again

repeating the same answer, prays the same be taken as an answer to this third article as fully as if here again set out at length; and as to the new allegation contained in said third article, that this respondent did appoint the said Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, 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, by which he authorized and empowered said Thomas to act as Secretary for the Department of War ad interim; and he denies that the same amounts to an appointment, and insists that it is only a designation of an officer of that Department to act temporarily as Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, until an appointment should be made. But, whether the said written authority amounts to an appointment or to a temporary authority or designation, this respondent denies that in any sense he did thereby intend to violate the Constitution of the United States, or that he thereby intended to give the said order the character or effect of an appointment in the constitutional or legal sense of that term. He further denies that there was no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the Department of War existing at the date of said written authority.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE IV.

of February 21, the first addressed to Mr. Stanton and the second to the said Thomas.

By the first order, the respondent notified Mr. Stanton that he was removed from the said office, and that his functions as Secretary for the Department of War were to terminate upon the receipt of that order; and he also thereby noti fied the said Stanton that the said Thomas had been authorized to act as Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, and ordered the said Stanton to transfer to him all the records, books, papers, and other public property in his custody and charge; and, by the second order, this respondent notified the said Thomas of the removal from office of the said Stanton, and authorized him to act as Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, and directed him to immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office, and to receive the transfer of all the records, books, papers, and other public property from Mr. Stanton then in his custody and charge.

Respondent gave no instructions to the said Thomas to use intimidation or threats to enforce obedience to these orders. He gave him no authority to call in the aid of the military or any other force to enable him to obtain possession of the office, or of the books, papers, records, or property thereof. The only agency

means of the said executive orders requiring obedience. But the Secretary of the Department of War refused to obey these orders, and still holds undisturbed possession and custody of that Department, and of the records, books, papers, and other public property therein. Respondent further states that, in execution of the orders so by this respondent given to the said Thomas, he, the said Thomas, proceeded in a peaceful manner to demand of the said Stanton a surrender to him of the public property in the said Department, and to vacate the possession of the same, and to allow him, the said Thomas, peaceably to exercise the duties devolved upon him by authority of the President. That, as this respondent has been informed and believes, the said Stanton peremptorily refused obedience to the orders so issued. Upon such refusal, no force or threat of force was used by the said Thomas, by authority of the President or otherwise, to enforce obedience, either then or at any subsequent time.

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 February, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at any other time or place, he did unlawfully conspire with the said Lorenzo Thomas, or with the said Thomas and any other person or persons, with intent, by intimidations and threats, unlawfully to hinder and prevent the said Stanton from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of the provisions of the said act of Congress in said article mentioned, or that he did then and there commit or was guilty of a high crime in office. On the contrary thereof, protesting that the said Stanton was not then and there lawfully the Secretary for the Department of War, this respondent states that his sole purpose in authorizing the said Thomas to act as Secretary for the Department of War ad interim was, as is fully stated in his answer to the said first article, to bring the question of the right of the said Stanton to hold said office, notwithstanding his said suspension, and notwithstanding the said order of removal, and notwithstanding the said authority of the said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, to the test of a final decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the earliest practicable mode by which the question could be brought before that tribunal.

This respondent did not conspire or agree with the said Thomas, or any other person or persons, to use intimidation or threats to hinder or prevent the said Stanton from holding the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, nor did this respondent at any time command or advise the said Thomas or any other person or persons to resort to or use either threats or intimidations for that purpose. The only means in the contemplation or purpose of respondent to be used are set forth fully in the said orders

This respondent doth here except to the sufficiency of the allegations contained in said fourth article, and states for ground of exception, that it is not stated that there was any agreement between this respondent and the said Thomas, or any other person or persons, to use intimida tion and threats, nor is there any allegation as to the nature of said intimidation and threats, or that there was any agreement to carry them into execution, or that any step was taken or agreed to be taken to carry them into execution, and that the allegation in said article that the intent of said conspiracy was to use intimidation and threats is wholly insufficient, inasmuch as it is not alleged that the said intent formed the basis or become a part of any agreement between the said alleged conspirators, and, furthermore, that there is no allegation of any

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

ANSWER TO ARTICLE V.

And for answer to the said fifth article, this respondent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 1868, or at 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 Washington aforesaid, or at any other place, 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 pursuance of said alleged conspiracy, he did unlawfully attempt to prevent the said Edwin M. Stanton from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, or that he did thereby commit, or that he was thereby guilty of, a high misdemeanor in office. Respondent, protesting that said Stanton was not then and there Secretary for he Department of War, begs leave to refer to his answer given to the fourth article and to his answer given to the first article, as to his intent and purpose in issuing the orders for the removal of Mr. Stanton and the authority given to the said Thomas, and prays equal benefit therefrom as if the same were here again repeated and fully set forth.

And this respondent excepts to the sufficiency of the said fifth article, and states his ground for such exception, that it is not alleged by what means or by what agreement the said alleged conspiracy was formed or agreed to be carried out, or in what way the same was attempted to be carried out, or what were the acts done in pursuance thereof.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE VI.

answers, in so far as they are applicable, to show the intent with which he proceeded in the premises, and prays equal benefit therefrom as if the same were here again fully repeated. Respondent further takes exception to the sufficiency of the allegations of this article as to the conspiracy alleged, upon the same grounds as stated in the exception set forth in his answer to said article fourth.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE VIII.

And for answer to the said eighth article, this respondent denies that on the 21st 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 unlawfully to control the disbursements of the money appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War. This respondent, protesting that there was a vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department 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 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 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 herein before set forth; and he prays the same. benefit from his answer in the premises as if the same were here again repeated at length.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE IX.

And for answer to the said ninth article the respondent states that on the said 22d day of February, 1868, the following note was addressed to the said Emory by the private secretary of respondent:

And for answer to the said sixth article, this respondent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at any other time or place, he did unlawfully conspire with the said Thomas by force to seize, take, or possess, the property of the United States in the Department of War, contrary to be pleased to have you call upon him as early as practicable.

the provisions of the said acts referred to in the said article, or either of them, or with intent to violate either of them. Respondent, protesting that said Stanton was not then and there Secre

tary for the Department of War, not only denies the said conspiracy as charged, but also denies any unlawful intent in reference to the custody and charge of the property of the United States in the said Department of War, and again refers to his former answers for a full statement of his intent and purpose in the premises.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE VII.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 22, 1868. GENERAL: The President directs me to say that he will

Respectfully and 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 in the military affairs of the department. Respondent 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 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 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 intent to violate or disregard the said act in the sard 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 B

any

[General Orders No. 17.]

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, March 14, 1867.
The following acts of Congress are published for the in-

formation and government of all concerned:

II-PUBLIC-No. 85.
AN ACT making appropriations for the support of the

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

17]

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, ETC.

277

acy or agreement to use intimidation or | Department of War, again refers to his former

ANSWER TO ARTICLE V.

for answer to the said fifth article, this dent denies that on the said 21st day of -ry, 1868, or at any other time or times in he year before the said 2d day of March, r at any prior or subsequent time, at ngton aforesaid, or at any other place, this lent did unlawfully conspire with the nomas, or with any other person or perO prevent or hinder the execution of the t entitled "An act regulating the tenure ain civil offices," or that, in pursuance of leged conspiracy, he did unlawfully atto prevent the said Edwin M. Stanton olding said office of Secretary for the De-nt of War, or that he did thereby commit, he was thereby guilty of, a high misdein office. Respondent, protesting that Canton was not then and there Secretary Department of War, begs leave to refer answer given to the fourth article and to =wer given to the first article, as to his innd purpose in issuing the orders for the al of Mr. Stanton and the authority given said Thomas, and prays equal benefit -om as if the same were here again reand fully set forth.

this respondent excepts to the sufficiency said fifth article, and states his ground h exception, that it is not alleged by what or by what agreement the said alleged racy was formed or agreed to be carried in what way the same was attempted to ried out, or what were the acts done in nce thereof.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE VI.

for answer to the said sixth article, this dent denies that on the said 21st day of ary, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at her time or place, he did unlawfully conwith the said Thomas by force to seize, or possess, the property of the United

answers, in so far as they are applicable, to show
the intent with which he proceeded in the prem-
ises, and prays equal benefit therefrom as if the
same were here again fully repeated. Respond-
ent further takes exception to the sufficiency of
the allegations of this article as to the conspiracy
alleged, upon the same grounds as stated in the
exception set forth in his answer to said article
fourth.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE VIII.

And for answer to the said eighth article, this respondent denies that on the 21st 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 unlawfully to control the disbursements of the money appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War. This respondent, protesting that there was a vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department 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 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 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 herein before set forth; and he prays the same. benefit from his answer in the premises as if the same were here again repeated at length.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE IX.

And for answer to the said ninth article the res

pondent states that on the said 22d day of Feb-
ruary, 1868, the following note was addressed
to the said Emory by the private secretary of
respondent:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 22, 1868.
GENERAL: The President directs me to say that he will

Respectfully and truly, yours,

WILLIAM G. MOORE,
United States Army.

in the Department of War, contrary to be pleased to have you call upon him as early as practicable.
-ovisions of the said acts referred to in the
rticle, or either of them, or with intent to
e either of them. Respondent, protesting
aid Stanton was not then and there Secre-
or the Department of War, not only denies
id conspiracy as charged, but also denies
lawful intent in reference to the custody
arge of the property of the United States
said Department of War, and again refers
former answers for a full statement of his
and purpose in the premises.

ANSWER TO ARTICLE VII.

for answer to the said seventh article, dent denies that on the said 21st day of ary, 1868, at Washington aforesaid, or at her time and place, he did unlawfully conwith the said Thomas with intent unlawco seize, take, or possess the property of the d States in the Department of War with to violate or disregard the said act in the seventh article referred to, or that he did and there commit a high misdemeanor in Respondent, protesting that the said

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 in the military affairs of the department. Respondent 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 respondent to a general order which he referred to and which this respondent then sent for,when it was produced. It is as follows:

[General Orders No. 17.]

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, March 14, 1867.
The following acts of Congress are published for the in-
formation and government of all concerned:

II-PUBLIC-No. 85.

sunnont of the

THE UNIVERSITT DE

MICHIGAN LIDRARIES

« AnteriorContinuar »