Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-08
CARPING CARPENTER.
THE WISCONSIN, SENATOR VENTS HIS
SPLEEN ON FIIZ JOHN PORTER.
FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS.
Second SESSION.

Second SESSION.
The Senate.
WASHINGTON, March 6.-The Vice President
laid before the Senate letter from the COM
missioner of pensions, submitting revised
estimate of the deficiency for army and navy
pensions for the fiscal year ending June 80
next.
Senator Teller introduced bill to enable
town sites to be entered on public lands. Re-
ferred. He had prepared the bill il accord
auce with part of the late report of the pub
lie land commissioner. That report contained
very many questions of doubtful propriety,
but the part embraced in the bill would prob
ably not be questioned by anyone familiar with
the wants of the Western people. II was now
practically impossible in Western States and
Territories to enter town sites. He invited
the early action of the committee on the
matter.
Some bills of personal nature being dis
posed of, a bill to annul section 2447 of the
revised statutes, in relation to the issue of
patents to private land claims confirmed by
act of Congress, was passed.
Consideration was then resumed of the bill
for the relief of Fitz John Porter and Senator
Carpenter addressed the Senate.
Senator Carpenter said careful observer
of the tendencies of our time cannot fail to
see that in every branch of our government we
are running towards consolidation and centrali-
cation of power, and that inside of the gov
eminent the tendency is equally strong to-
ward the Capitalization of power in Congress.
In illustration he remarked: We have estab-
lished by law, and supported for several years.
at the expense of the people, the department of
agriculture and it is now proposed
Inv an6 MINING and mannfqc.
tues. Considering that neither the word
agriculture, mining Or manufacture occurs in
the constitution, nor are they referred to, it is
little curious to know to what provision of
the constitution this new executive depart
ment is to be traced. This disregard for the
constitution marks deeadence In our practice
and in our governments. 1t leads to danger
GUS encroachment on the provinces of the
State. The constitution says all officers of the
United States shall be appointed by the Presi
dent, by and with consent of the Senate. We
pass law directing men to be appointed in
| the army, breaking the line of promotion.
| What authority has Congress to so command
| the President to appoint man in the army,
/ more than in the courts or in any other civil
office. Nothing whatever but usage. Nothing
| but persistent, obstinate violation of the con-
stitution and encroachment upon the executive
power. An essential element of our system OF
| government is the distribution of powers in
three great branches of the gOvernment-legis.
lative, executive and judicial. Yet this very
pending bill expects to strike down this dis.
tinction and to exercise judicial power by the
two houses of Congress. The original
bill proposes that the President shall be author.
| lied to set aside and annul the judgment of a
court rendered seventeen years ago,and restores
Fitz John Porter to the place in the army
which he lost by that judgment. Gan any
lawyer call this legislation an exercise of legis
lative power. 1t was proposed to set aside the
| Judgment and restore Porter. He has been
| seventeen years o private citizen without ask
ing yea or nay. He was not to be confirmed OF
a denomination but restored by an act of the
President, annulling the sentence of the Court.
| That was to carry with it, by logical conse
quence. all the pay he would have been entitled
| to if he hadn't been removed, and had othel
| like effects. Now it not having been ascer
| tanned Il suppose that was pretty tough jot
| for Congress to undertake) the member of the
committee who reported the bill (Randolph
has offered substitute authorizing the Presi-
dent to name and by and with the advice Of thu
! Senate to appoint Porter a colonel in the army
dating from 1868. In some respects thi.
amendment is worse than the original bill
| That bill assumed that Congress could set aside
| the findings of the court, and its other provis
ions followed logically from that assumption
| This amendment does not propose to pay thu
| Judgment of the court, even the passing re
spect of annulling it. II proposes to leave il
| in full force, declaring Porter should be dis
missed and rendered incapable of holding any
| Office Of trust, honor and profit under thu
| United States thereafter. 1t leaves that sen
tence in full force, and yet in absolute con
tempt of it, Congress is expected to provide
that the President may name and the Senate
| confirm this man to hold the Office of colonel
| If Fitz John Porter can be named by the Presi
dent and confirmed, is there any occasion fo
passing bills saying that it can be done? If b,
is eligible at all, may not the President ano
Senate exercise their constitutional power with
out the aid of an act of Congress.
The Senator continued: The amendment
proposed by the senator from Rhode ISLAND
(Burnside) which provides that a new trial by
court of thirteen officers, having power, subjec
to the approval by the President, to confirm
mitigate or avoid the former sentence is still
! more remarkable. Porter having been a pri
vate citizen for more than seventeen years can
not be subjected to the jurisdiction Of cour
martial. Even with his consent, the Who'll.
proceeding would be a farce and nullity. Con
gress has no more right to try Porter, to-day, by
court martial than it has to try you
| MIR. President, or me. The conrt martial tha
tried Porter and drove him in disgrace from the
vice was clothed with the majesty Of the constitu
ton and laws authorizing the ad ninistration Of
justice this man, then in the military service.
was composed Of men of eminence in their profes
sion, authorized to call witnesses from all parts o.
the UnltcO StdUeS 10 BeflO lOr PERSONS ana p3p6r
and administer oaths, and any man who swore tase,
before 1t committed perjury, and must atone for his
ofense in the penitentiary. What power had three
individuals that passed upon this subject, are
told In review of the action of the court martial
They had no power whatever. They couldn't send fo
J witness-that is, compel his att ndance-couldn'
| subpoena. They couldn't administer an oath, Am
| tod they proceeded to do it. 1 undertake to say
that if they did they committed the crime of the nd
minstraton of extra judicial oath, that is, with
out lawful authority to administer. It's crime is pun
| lshable at common law and by statutary law every
| where. No man who told false story there could
be indicted for perjury. The board was not even a
court of inquiry. 1t was not a military proceeding
Pardonng Is not the exercise of military power. The
President, acting in his capacity as CHIEF
C vii magistrate of the land, might pardon
| this man, and he wanted to know whether
he ought to pardon him or not and 30 he requests
he can't order-requests these individuals to advise
| him Now hope those on the other side in this de-
bate will tell what clause of the constitution gave
| this board any authority whatever.
The Senator. after further argument In support OF
his position, said: The decision of the courts
hal is as final as that of civil courts, just Eng
fish ecclesiastical courts decision is final that
of the lord chancellor and for the reason that OBJ
tains in all courts, that where there liz appeal
authorized from tribunal authorized to hear case,
| It's decision must be final. The President
can pardon Porter, continued Carpenter, and the
pardon would wipe out all consequences of the sem
tence. 1t would give him the same legal standing he
would have had before he was sentenced am told
Porter has never applied for pardon. I submit
that under the circumstances of this Porter Is
not at liberty to set his frown against the only
that under the constitution relieve him and ask
us to exercise power the constitution denies Is it
any humiliation for him to apply to that ultimate
power which may still reach his case, which is
ample and copious, which falls like streams from
rising springs, which may reach his and vio-
late no principle of the constitution. We cannot
touch the without violating oaths to support
the constitution for the psrdoning power belongs to
the executive and, matter what it is called, the
annullment of this sentence would operate as par
don.
In conclusion, sanator Carpenter said, IL had in
tended to review the testimony the question of
fact: Was not Porter guilty? There two reasons
why don't. In the first place. think it is wholly
unnecessary. Bee use if we have constitutional
power to pardon him. what is the thing relieve
him from that judgment in any form of proceeding
whaiever-it is immaterial to us whether he was
guilty not. In the next place that part of the
task has been performed by the Senator from Illinois