orth, 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, D.C., February 21, 1868, addressed to Brevet
Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General United States Army,
Washington, D.C., 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.

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_,