Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-12-18

oOmDdsteS, zen. POPE. That equally
,otorious demagogue, JoE HoLT, acted as
Judge Advocate, and as his Court was or
ganized to convict, he performed his share
of the dirty work allotted to him. The
following, from Gen.. FRANKLIN to Gen.
GRANT. falls with crushing effect upon
Gen. PoPE, upon whose testimony PORTER
was convicted: Gen. FRANKLIN says Gen.
REYNOLDS and himself would swear that
they would not believe PoPE undrr oath,
and that Gen. THOMAS, he had no doubt,
would do the same thing. The man must
be terrible liar, when his brother officers
would thus voluntarily swear that, even
under the solemnity of an oath. he was not
to be believed. Such man ought, at once,
to be ignominiously dismissed from the
Army, rs a disgrace to it.. He is the same
Gen. PoPE that telegraphed that he had
taken thousands of prisoners, when he had
not-taken single one. Gen. FRANKL1N's
letter to Gen. GRANT is as follows:
slesii HARTFORD, Conn, Sept. 81, 1867.
MY DEAR GRANT:-Fitz John Porter
writes me to ask that 1 will do something
to aid him in getting a re hearing of his
give you the reasons why think it will be
an act Of justice to give him the opportuni-
ty to clear himself from the terrible impu-
tation now resting upon him.
saw Porter in Pope's company the day
after the latter's defeat at Bull Run, and
afterwards, until we arrived in front OF
Washington. l know that they were on
very cordial terms, and that on some occa-
sions advised with him confidentially. /
talked good deal myself with Pope, and
think that If he had had at that time any
feeling that Porter had acted badly, would
have learned 1t then, but had no suspicion
that he felt aggrieved by anything that
Porter or any one who was then near HIM,
had done. At Fairfax Court House, the
noticed that Pope was particularly in good
spirits and cordial with Porter. 1 have.
therefore, always thought that the attack
upon Porter was the result of an after
thought, aud that the charges were not
| original with Pope. ~
During the trial thought it proper to
inform Porter that Generals j. F. REYNOLDS,
George II. Thomas, and myself, would, ii
requested, go before the court and swear
that we would not believe Pope or Roberts
under oath. had consulted General Rev.
nolds before made the proposition. He
consented to 90 himself, and thought Gen.
eral Thomas would have no hesitation in
SltIIS SuCu CNlucuCC. ! WAS uvkelI well
convinced of General Thomas opinion of
Pope's veracity from what 1 had often
heard him say, before the war. Porter de-
Glued to call us up to give this evidence,
on the ground that the court appeared so
well disposed towards him, and his case
was going on SO well, that he did not wish
to irritate the court by an attempt to break
down the evidence Of the principal prosecu-
tors. The sequence showed that he made
n a. riOuS mistake.
But think that the most equitable rea-
SON for a review of Pnrter's ease is this
The Judge Acknowledgement Holt was the
Judge Advocate OF the court. That was
right enough. But no one will deny that
a Judge advocate of military court, when
prisoner is defended by able counsel, be-
comes to a great extent prosecutor. and
as such necessarily Is biased against the
prisoner. To say thtt General Holt was
pr, judiced against Porter, is merely to say
that he is like other men, and that he was
50 prejudiced the whole proceeding shows.
Whether it Is better or worse for the course
of justice that the judge advocate should
be pr.judiced has nothing TO do with the
question.
But an abstract of the proceedings and
finding and sentence of the court had to be
made by the Judge Advocate General for
presentation to the President of the United
States. upon which (for he ne cessarily could
not read the evidence) he was to make up his
mind as to the guilt or innocence of the ac-
cused.7 Was it right, proper. or decent, that
this abstract should be made up by the very
mau who had done his best to convict the
prisoner? Did not such a proceeding pre-
vent the President from learning any ex-
tenuating circumstance, or finding out any
thing weak in the evidence, III any such there
were? Did it not, in fact take away any
chance from Porter which he might have
had, had cool, unbiased person of legal
made this abstract instead of
General Holt?
TIE whole business seems to me like a
attorney passing sentence upon
a prisoner in civil court immediately at
ter the speeches of counsel. l think the
fact that Mr.. Lincoln had only Gen. Hollis
abstract to guide him in making up all
opinion on the proceedings of that court,
is enough to invalidate the whole thing.
1t has been said. and perhaps with truth,
that there is no precedent to guide in this
matter. Il may be said with equal truth,
that never since the trial of Admiral Byng,
was Injustice so without precedent dOne.-|
I think that there never was a more appro-
pirate opportunity for going beyond prece-
dent, and establishing the fact that no mat
ter how or by whom fagrant Injustice is
done you, when the power is in your hands,
will see the right done. - -5
For my part, ! know that P jrter was as
loyal as the most loyal soldier now dead,
and that no thought OF treason or disaffec
ton entered his brain. He was victim to
Pope's failure in Virginia, and it seems to
me he has remained victim long enough.
You will. in my opinion, do an act which
will not be the least among those which
will make up your fame if you will lend
your weight towards giving Porter the op
portunity to retrieve his character as cit
izen and soldier.
1 am truly your friend,
w. B. FRANKLIN.
General U. S. Grant, Commanding Army
of the United States.
(Oficial copy.) E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant General.