The Sunday herald. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1866-1887, 1882-11-26

THAT the feeling in regard to Fitz John
rorter's is by no means unanimous is shown by
occasional publications which do coucedc that the
ease has been closed 10y the findings OF the Schoheld
Board, or by General Grants change of front. This
is the position Of - stan Omcer - who writing to
the New York Times, asks leave
In behalf Of number Of old Army Of the Potomac
men who discussing gen. Grant article To state
some Ot the questions which rise to confront tho
claims now made ly Gen. rOrei's alvocates-qucs-
tiOns which are and viii he asked without regard to
any other rulnt at lssuc without regard either To
Portcr's animus, revealed In his letters to Burn
side to his conviction by rt-martial, which
was mislhtormel aud mistaken In many essential
matiers l. II Porter, before after Mcdowell left
him on the Goth of August, under the impression
that an overwhelming force of the enemy was immu-
dately In his front, why did he not when lett to him
self take measures to ascertain the fact beyond any
possibility nt doubt, and report 1t urgently To GEN
Pope, whose latest dispatches to Porter coniontiy
with Mcdowell Indicated no comprehension of anything
Of tho kind? Fhs testimony before the SchOieI
Board Is that Porter made reconnussl lnce beyond
establishing q picket line In his front, and that tho
enemy, In force, was not only not visible, eNcep; Ia
dust symptoms, etc, from any position which lie,
Porter occupied but nnt visible any time that
day to rnrter's plckets =. II Porter had the i'm.
preston referred TO- aud acting on it, was not
his position very precarous with only TO- 600 men OPP
posed To 20 900 In front of hG and he separated by
some three miles from any support, and II 81
was 1t not his duty to he at the very front Of
his own position, II only to guard against
surprise or meet a general attack? The tes-
tlmOny before the Schoield Board Is that he spent
the greater part of the afternoon ia eueSs two aud
hLlt miles In rear Of his advanced troops. .. If
Porter had the impression referred to- and act
Ing on It, would 1t NOT have seemed Of vital impur-
lance To the whole of our Army that the enemy in
POrtcrS front SHOULD stay there inactive, aud not S
they were AT liberty 10 do, move of to the front Of
Pope on pOrter'S rght9 Was Porter sending out
reconnaissance, and himself tar from the front,
sure tnlt the practically Invisible enemy In over
whelming force not only had to his front hut
remained there! The testimony before the SchO-
field Board is that Porter did mt have this uGurmn-
ton, aud took effective steps Ia obtain It, T. II
Porter had the impression referred to, and act
Ing on it, why was he aimle'sly employed as he
indicated In despatch dated late that afternoon from
his sedenary quarters In the rear that he had been
wandering around Ia the woods aud had been trying
in what woods, and what battery Ind ha been trying
To get? The testimony before the Schoinld Board Is
that he had made IN movement of troops which could
be characterized in that way, and that lac had
available batteries Of his own aud made attack on
the cncmNs. Finally 1t is very clear from the eyi-
dence, the rulings the argument, and the findings,
that before the ScOfell Board Porter had the baucft
of the prejudice Ia his favor naturally created by the
attitude OF Pope and Mcdowell and the palpabla
errors which msleh the court martial in his case.
Bnt in spite uf the favorable report of that board aud
Gen. GRANTS high minded Endorsement, Gen.
Porter cannot yet he accepted by all his old comrades
III arms aS an ideal corps commander on the 10Th {
August, acting Independently for the time and loyal
beyond all things To his duty to HIMSELF lis troops,
his superiuTF, aud the la which ho was IN
trusted with high command