ably 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.

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
intimidation 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 became 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 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 the 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 the Department of War,
begs leave to refer to his answer given to the fourth article and to his
answer 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 s