The Evening critic., 1882-01-04
Fity.John portcr.s Case,


The Washington correspondent of the
Baltimore San says The first Iumors of
the remarkable conversion of Gen. Grant
with respect to the FitZ-Johu Porter case,
which came here several days ago, were
scarcely credited by any one, but all doubts
were dispelled to-day by the authority
which Gen. Grant has himself given. No
court martial in the military history Of
this country has attracted so much attcn-
ton as that which sat upon the case of
Fitz-John Porter. Thousands of printed
pages of testimony, thousands of pages OF
military opinions and decisions and of
speeches on the case delivered in both
houses of Congress attest the importance
with which the case has been invested.
Almost without exception the lealin e
Republicans in the Senate and the House,
the political generals of the war, and not
few of the regular army officers, held th
opinion that Fitz-JOhn Porter was guilty
Of a criminal disobedience of orders at the
second battle of Bull Run, and played
directly into the hands of the Con ederates
Gen. Grant himself, Senator Zach. Chand-
Ter, Senator Logan and others, whenever
the subject was brought up, never hesitated
TO express the opinion in public and in pri-
vate that Porter should have been shot.
Gen. Logan, when the subject was again
up in the Senate three years ago, spoke two
or three days against Porter in the most
denunciatory style, and asserting that the
punishment OF death should have been
mctod out TO him.
But during all these nineteen years,
Gen. Porter has had staunch friends in The
regular army, in Congress and in private
life, who have maintained that gross in
justice was done him, and that time would
surely bring his vindication. These
claimed that their views were based OH
impartial and thorough investigation of
all the circumstances OF the ell se and they
agreed that political rancOr and aDimosity
had much TO do with forming the opinions
of those who declared against him. If Gen.
Porter had not beena Democrat, his friends
always said, he would have received fairer
treatment.
Now we have Gen. Grant, who for nine
teen years has given the weight of his name
TO the charges and suspicious against Gen.
Porter, voluntarily coming forward and
admitting that he had never thoroughly
studied nor understood the case before, and
that the impartial examination which he
has at last bestowed upon it convinces him
that Gen. Porter has been deeply wronged,
and that the injustice which has been per-
petrated upon him should be remedied. 1t
is crCditable for Gen. Grant that he should
make such an acknowledgement even at
this late day.
'ln army circles and among friends of
Gen. Porter it is assumed, and, perhaps,
rather hastily that as the influence Of Gen.
Grant will now be eXerted in his favor
there will be no trouble about his restora-
tion TO the army. But the politicians will
have something to say in the matter, aud
several Republican Senators and Repre-
sentatives who were spoken TO on the sub
.ject to day, including two or three warm
personal friends of Gen. Grant, said his
conclusions were binding ON no one hut
himself, and that they would resist any re-
newed effort to remove the stigma upon
Gen. Porter just as strenuously Rs they had
resisted all past efforts"