The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-03
The Position of Senator Edmunds as
to Presidential Succession.
A New Glass of Pensioners Suggested-The
President Much Impressed by the
Sudden Death of MIR. Allen.
SHALL PORTER BE RESTORED.
Senator Logan Returns to the Attack and
Argues Against the Bill.


making an exhaustive argument upon the
FitZ John Porter case and the general opin-
ion is that he is making an unanswerable
one. Another legislative day will be con-
sumed ere the case is disposed of by the SEN
ate. The galleries were again crowded to-
day, and many members OF the other house
were upon the floor to listen to the Senator's
great speech. He began by justification of
his remarks the other day about people some
times changing their minds, and sent to the
clerks desk and had read two letters, one a
letter from General Pope to President
Grant, in April, 1874, stating that GEN
eral Porter claimed to have procured
new evidence which would either acquit
him or greatly modify the judgment in his
case, and asking the President to examine
the question, or have it examined and acted
upon, so "far as Justice or mercy demand"
the other, the Presidents reply, saying he
regarded the case as one of the greatest inn
portance, particularly to the army and navy;
that he had read the evidence given before
the court-martial, and also General Porter's
subsequent defense and was determined that
if he had been wronged he General Grant,
would right him so far as he could, and that
he had come to the conclusion that no new
facts had been developed and it was doubt
full whether, by action of the executive alone,
new trial could be legally given. Mr.. Lo-
gan said he would make no comment on
President Grants letter, but would leave it
to be its own comment.
Upon the question of the condition of the
road, which friends of General Porter said
was encountered with 1000 wagons, Mr..
Logan said he had made calculation show
ing that these three miles of road would hold
just $50 wagons instead of 1000. The argu-
ment that Porter was not to blame for fail
ing to obey promptly the $50 order was an
swered By TIE fact thet he had received =
prior order, dated o'clock, on the 9th, stat
ing that the enemy was moving up on the
Union lines and he (Porter) must be ready at
any moment.
Mr.. Logan proceeded next to consider
what he called the second branch of the case,
viz, the question: was there battle on the
29th of August, 1862? One reason
given by the Schofield board
for their report in General Porter's
favor was that there was no battle
on that day, but only skirmish. How the
board could have reached that conclusion he
could not understand for it was directly
contradicted by the evidence, and upon this
point he read from the testimony OF Generals
Mcdowell Reynold, Schenek, Robinson,
Grover, Birney, Sigel and other Union Off
GERS, and from the testimony of officers of
JdCkSOn command 10 SNOW tnaJ Inefe was
a severe battle that day. One of the division
commanders under Longstreet that day
General Wilcox, was now an officer of the
Senate, and had told him (Mr Logan) that
his troops were engaged in the battle of
the Goth.
LOGAN ALSO WAS PRESENT.
Mr. Sewell-If the Senate succeeds in prov
ing that, he will place the commanding gen.
eral in a very bad position.
Mr. Logan will prove it by General Will
cox, by General Lee and by General Long
street.
Mr., Sewell-There is no question but that
Longstreet was there on the 29th.
Mr.. Logan-Yes, ana l was in the fight,
too.
Mr. Sewell-That has been always denied
by General Pope.
Mr. Logan-It makes no difference who de-
nies it-I am talking about the facts. 1t is
very strange, this constant effort to make this
a trial of Pope.
Mr. Sewell-It ought to be-
Mr. Logan-Oh, yes. Well, 1 make it
trial of Porter, and will make this country
understand, too that it is Porter who is on
trial for disobedience of Pope's orders.
Claiming to have shown beyond doubt that
there was battle on the 29th, Mr.. Logan
said the next question was: did Porter re-
ceye any order to take part in that battle,
and, if SO, did he obey or disobey it? Gen.
Porter arrived at Bristow Station at $50 in
the morning, and ten minutes later he wrote
Burnside, saying, among other things, he
thought his lucky star was up, and adding:
Il hope Macs star is up, too What did
that mean? Mac had been removed from
command of the army, Pope had been put
there in his stead, and the hope was to get
Pope out and have Mac restored. That was
the meaning of that remark. Again,
Porter wrote in the same let
ter: You will hear of us
soon by way of Alexandria, Why by way
of Alexandria? If the army was successful
it would follow the enemy into the interior
of Virginia; but Alexandria was the place to
retreat to in case of defeat There were only
two ways to explain Porter's conduct Either
he was a coward, or else he did not intend
to fight under Pope; and as the senator from
New Jersey (Mr Sewel) SAID he was not o
coward, the other explanation must be ac-
cepted."
Mr.. Sewell asked Mr.. Logan whether he
meant to convey the idea that Porter was on
the flank of the Confederate army, or any
where near it.
Mr.. Logan-No, l do not wish to convey
the idea that he was on the Confederate
army at all, for he was not but if he had
obeyed Popes order he would have been on
the Confederate flank
Mr.. Sewel-The Senator does not under
stand the situation. The order of General
Pope contemplated his striking the left flank
of Jackson, and not Longstreet, who was in
his front.
Mr.. Logan-Upon what authority does
the Senator say Longstreet was in his front?
Mr.. Sewell-Upon Longstreets own evil
dence
Mr.. Logan denied that there was a large
force in Porter's front, and read from Con-