but through the General in Chief, or General Grant?

General Emory again reiterated the statement that it had met
respondent's approval, and that it was the opinion of some of the
leading lawyers of the country that this order was constitutional. With
some further conversation, respondent then inquired the names of the
lawyers who had given the opinion, and he mentioned the names of two.
Respondent then said that the object of the law was very evident,
referring to the clause in the appropriation act upon which the order
purported to be based. This, according to respondent's recollection,
was the substance of the conversation had with General Emory.

Respondent denies that any allegations in the said article of any
instructions or declarations given to the said Emory then or at any
other time contrary to or in addition to what is hereinbefore set forth
are true. Respondent denies that in said conversation with said Emory he
had any other intent than to express the opinion then given to the said
Emory, nor did he then or at any time request or order the said Emory
to disobey any law or any order issued in conformity with any law,
or intend to offer any inducement to the said Emory to violate any
law. What this respondent then said to General Emory was simply the
expression of an opinion which he then fully believed to be sound,
and which he yet believes to be so, and that is that by the express
provisions of the Constitution this respondent, as President, is made
the Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States, and as such
he is to be respected, and that his orders, whether issued through the
War Department, or through the General in Chief, or by any other channel
of communication, are entitled to respect and obedience, and that such
constitutional power can not be taken from him by virtue of any act of
Congress. Respondent doth therefore deny that by the expression of such
opinion he did commit or was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office;
and the respondent doth further say that the said Article IX lays no
foundation whatever for the conclusion stated in the said article, that
the respondent, by reason of the allegations therein contained, was
guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

In reference to the statement made by General Emory that this respondent
had approved of said act of Congress containing the section referred to,
the respondent admits that his formal approval was given to said act,
but acc