The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-01-04
TELEGRAPHIC NEWS
FETZ-JoHN PORTER.
Grant 1T Last wants Justice
Done.

New York. "A Times reporter
interviewed General Grant on yesterday 3
rumor that be had interested himself in
behalf of Fitz-John Porter. Grant said:
am anxious 10 see justice done 10 Por-
ter reputation, ss soldier, bat the
question of his being restored to the
army is something that l have nothing
10 do with. had fully made up my
mind that the judgement of the court
martial WAS JUST. Recently. however,
at the reque.t of P.;rter, l have read over
all of the testimony la the case, and also
the orders and reports of confederate
cffic-rs who were st the second battle of
Bull Run. As prog IN my reading
became vey much intere-ted in the
case, and found th at the facts were very
different to what | have hitherto be-
lieved. AIN OF the opinion that had all
of the testimony and documents now
available been brought before the court
martial, there would have been no YER
dict sc ainst Porter. The orders of
confederate generals show that the coz
federate army was just where Porter said
it was, ana not where the court martial
was led TO believe it was. For nineteen
years l have believed that the finding of
the court was 3 just one, and warranted
by the facts, but now | see that l I'm in
error, and the fact that for twelve years
when was general of the army and
President Of the United States, I had it
in my power to do Porter justice, and did
not. makes me feel under obliga-
tons to do all that I possibly
can to remove the edium and disgrace
L finished reading the testimony about
three weeks ago, and since then l have
expressed my ouvictions unreservedly
to some of my friends. / did not expect,
however. that anything would be printed
in the newsp. pers about the matter. l
communicated my conclusions after in
vestigatink the matter, to General Logan,
who Is warm personal friend of mine.
desired him 10 understand clearly my
position. | think Porter is entirely in
n0cent of the charges MADE against him,
and am thoroughly satisfied that in
POpe's campaign he did his duty to the
very best of his ability.
Have you written to President Ar
thur about this csse?''
Il must decline to say anything on
that subject. What I do or say will all
be made public in due time, and through
proper channels. | shall write out my
views and append my signature to them,
and it is quite likely that my statement
will in the course of time, find its way
into print. cannot tell you when
that statement will be prepared"
Porter has been greatly wrorged, and
there is scarcely any reparation that can
Of misrepresentation and humiliation.
lP tho -efs 70 ho 4ol
viding government can be brought to
see the matter in the same light that
do, is TO restore Porter his good uame
and give him back his reputation as
soldier, so that neither himself nor his
family need longer suffer humiliation
and dishoDor. Sometimes it may become
The duty of soldier to disObey orders.
For instance, a commanding general may |
send an order 10 subordinate who is |
3 long distance of. He may not be fully |
acquainted with the condition of affairs |
at the place where his subordinate is, or
during toe transmission of the order cir |
may have taken an entirely |
different phase. Such Thugs have been
known to happen, and very often where |
it becomes the bouIden duty of subor-
dinste to disobey orders.
Commenting npVn the above, the !
Times says editorially: Il has been gen.
orally supposed that Porter disobeyed |
orders, setting up his Individual opinion
against that of his commanding officer.
Perhaps the general public is sill wrong
in this, but it will be necessary now to
show thst Porter was not only right il
bis. Individual judgment, as shown by
new lights on the subject, but that he did
not disob'y the orders of his command
ing officer.