history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第33章

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！


2；　1867；　did　authorize　and　empower　Ulysses　S。　Grant；　General　of　the　armies　of　the　United　States；　to　act　as　Secretary　for　the　Department　of　War　ad　interim；　in　the　form　in　which　similar　authority　had　theretofore　been　given；　not　until　the　next　meeting　of　the　Senate　and　until　the　Senate　should　act　on　the　case；　but　at　the　pleasure　of　the　President；　subject　only　to　the　limitation　of　six　months　in　the　said　last…mentioned　act　contained；　and　a　copy　of　the　last…named　order　was　made　known　to　the　Senate　of　the　United　States　on　the　12th　day　of　December；　1867；　as　will　be　hereinafter　more　fully　stated：　and　in　pursuance　of　the　design　and　intention　aforesaid；　if　it　should　become　necessary　to　submit　the　said　question　to　a　judicial　determination；　this　respondent；　at　or　near　the　date　of　the　last…mentioned　order；　did　make　known　such　his　purpose　to　obtain　a　judicial　decision　of　the　said　question；　or　such　of　them　as　might　be　necessary。

And　this　respondent；　further　answering；　says；　that　in　further　pursuance　of　his　intention　and　design；　if　possible；　to　perform　what　he　judged　to　be　his　imperative　duty；　to　prevent　the　said　Stanton　from　longer　holding　the　office　of　Secretary　for　the　Department　of　War；　and　at　the　same　time　avoiding；　if　possible；　any　question　respecting　the　extent　of　the　power　of　removal　from　executive　office　confided　to　the　President　by　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States；　and　any　question　respecting　the　construction　and　effect　of　the　first　section　of　the　said　〃act　regulating　the　tenure　of　certain　civil　offices；〃　while　he　should　not；　by　any　act　of　his；　abandon　and　relinquish；　either　a　power　which　he　believed　the　Constitution　had　conferred　on　the　President　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　Constitution　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；　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