ame 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_.--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
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 Secretary 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_.--And for answer to the said seventh article
respondent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 1868, at
Washington aforesaid, or at any other time and place, he did unlawfully
conspire with the said Thomas with intent unlawfully to seize, take, or
possess the property of the United States in the Department of War, with
intent to violate or disregard the said act in the said 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 Department of War, again refers to his former
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 aforesai