按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
e 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； for 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 President； be lawful and necessary to raise； for a judicial decision； the questions affecting the lawful 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 F。 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 ofce 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 States。 He denies that the said order for the removal of the said Stanton was unlawfully issued。 He denies that the said order was issued with intent to violate the act entitled 〃An act 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 this respondent's oath of office； and he respectfully； but earnestly。 insists that not only was it issued 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 said 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。
ANSWER TO ARTICLE II。
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 said second article； bearing date at Washington； District of Columbia； February 21； 1868； addressed to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas； Adjutant General United States army； 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 articles 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。
2。 That notwithstanding the Senate of the United States was then in session； it was lawful and according to long and well established usage to empower and authorize the said Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim。
3。 That if the said act regulating the tenure of civil offices be held to be a valid law； no provision 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 XI。
And in answer to the eleventh article； this respondent denies that on the 18th day of August； in the year 1866； at the City of Washington； in the District of Columbia； he did； by public speech or otherwise； declare or affirm； in substance or at all； that the thirty…ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the constitution to exercise legislative power under the same； or that he did then and there declare or affirm that the said thirty…ninth Congress was a Congress of only part of the States in any sense or meaning other than that ten States of the Union were denied representation therein； or that he made any or either of the declarations or affrmations in this behalf； in the said article alleged； as denying or intending to deny that the legislation of said thirty…ninth Congress was valid or obligatory upon this respondent； except so far as this respondent saw fit to approve the same； and as to the allegation in said article； that be did thereby intend or mean to be understood tha