The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1880-03-19
The Case OF F1tz Jshn Porter.

Our esteemed contemporary, the Sun,
in its comments on the case of ritz John
Porter, should remember that the origi-
nal trial was generally looked upon at
the time, by decent people who knew
the facts, as one of the very scurviest OF
all the scurvy acts Of military injustice
Of which the infamous Stanton and the
not less infamous Holt had then been
guilty Holt was q narrow-mInded. a
bitter and unscrupulous Kentucky part
isan, driven out of Office in Mississippi
for his~blood. .hirstiness, who had been
made the Judge Acknowledgement OF
the War ONCE and was about as ut 10
hold such an Office as Scroggs and Jen-
reys. Stanton was datterer VINO trled
to stand well with President Buchanan
afler the election of November, 1850,
and so long as there were Executive
drippings for his little pan. When Bu-
chanal was at an end Stanton turned
upon his former companions and allies:
The accusation of Porter and his trial
were political operations throughout
The person really aimed at III the Porter
prosecution was not Porter but McClel-
Ian, whom Stanton and Holt did not
dare accuse and try. The trial took
place when the rivalries, jealousies and
animosities in the Union army were at
their whitest heat, and when the time
serving and truculent Stanton was the
convenient fountain-head of promotions
and breYets on the one hand. and or dis
grace and danger on the other hand.
Holt, as Judge AdvOcate-General, was
the public prosecutor IN cOurt-martlals
as the representative Of the President,
and at the same time the official adviser
of the Court. Holt threw himself into
the trial and the effort to convict Porter
with the ferocity of a French legal SUD
altern. Under the law and the rules OF
the War Office then in force the Judge
Advocated eneral was required to pre-
sent the facts of the case to the PresI-
dent when the proceedings were laid be
fore him for his approval or disapproval.
Hollis report of the facts, instead OF be-
ing a judicial exposition, was more par
tisan than the speech before the Court.
President Lincoln, whom Stant0n and
Holt both despised and hated, had nos
the time to carefully weigh the testl-
mOny piece by piece. He had to con-
fide in somebody. Stanton and Holt
harried and bullied him into an APPROX
al of the sentence. Stanton threatened
him with an exposure OF his domestic
difficulties if he hesitated. The prose-
cutIO0 OF Porter Dau DSen SET SlOOJ II.
order to get in q foul blow against Nc
Clellan, as we have said, under the form
of military jUdiCatuTe. The wre.ched
Stanton and the not less wretched Holt
were both prosecutors and judges. Near
ly a generation afterwards, when new
and complete evidence has been obtain
ed, and when the War Office is in pos
session OF all the facts, p new trial has
been ordered by President Hayes. Three
of the best and bravest Of the general
officers OF the army have been ordered to
sit as judges. The Government has as
signed it's most capable Judge Advocate
to the prosecution. The trial has been
patient, a thorough and public trial.
The Court has found unanimously that
the first sentence was unjust, and there
fore unlawful. Republican leaders
have thereupon decided that resistance
to a Congressional recognition Of the
military Judgment OK military court
is to be made party measure. What
do decent Republicans think OF this
And how long are such things to be toll
Grated in a country calling itself Chris
tian and civilized ?--Netc York World.