National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-03-13

the duty Of a military officer to obey lawful orders.
lhat duty was met here by an alleged right 70 the
exercise OF discretion. An atiirmance OF tue sem
ave OF the duty would defeat the bill; declare,
ton of the right to exercise the discretion would
pass me bill. The supporters OF the Dill dlo NOT
claim that Gen. Porter had obeyed the lawful
orders of his superior officer, they merely ad-
VanGed justification for the failure TO OBEY ~
was clear, therefore, that the duty OF obedience
was in this case squarely confronted by the dis-
War, Mr. Wilson said was not morcful en-
ployment contest Of arms meant death. ~
time, OF war armies were organized TO Kill and be
Killed. The articles OF war were in force in Au-
gust, 1862, when Gen. Pope commanded the army
OF Virginia and GEN Porter commanded corps
Of that army. Whatever lawful order Porter re-
ceiyed from Pope II was his duty to obey in the
manner prescribed by the ninth article OF war
strictly, and with alacrity and good faith. The
penalty for not performing that duty as prescribed
by the same article, was death, or such other pun
ishment as court martial might impose. NO
man doubted Gen, Porters ability, as sol.
der, neither did any one doubt his
knowledge Of military law; yet he had
one but his superior officer, well knowing that tho
assumption Of such discretion would put an end
to military organization. There hnd been here
such dlsobedienCe as might have been punished
with death. Discretion had no place in military
law, when an Otlcer or soldier received q we'll
defined lawful command from his superior officer;
If Gen. Porter had the right Of d secretion claimed
for him in this instance the same right would
have to be accorded to every other officer OF the
army, and military discipline and efficiency would
Mr. Wilson reviewed the case at some length in
its legal aspects, and continued that II the senate
the ninth art Gle Of war. The order to Porter had
| required him to start with his whole corps at
o'clock ard be at an assigned station by daylight.
Did that mean that he should see fit not to OBEY
| the order II did not mattcR If Gen. Pope had
| issued an order which would carry such an impli-
cation-which could be Interpreted as Gen Porter
Interpreted the order in this instance-he lGen.
| Popel would be laughed at II
would be like issuing an order
saying, "The MOTOR general directs you TO- start at
o'clock tonight; but, of course. this Is leit en-
by daylight, but in this respect also you are eK-
| pected by me to exercise your discretion, You
can determine in your discretion whether you
shall be here at that time or later or at all. How
was IL possible to conduct military affairs involv.
| ing such stupendous consequences upon orders OF
| that character If discretion ran as to an order,
why not write II in the order itseli2 How
could a commanding officer go into an en-
| gagement with this sort of discretion In every
officer under hin2 If congress proposed
10 declare that this sort of discretion existed, IL
inaugurate change in the principles taught
there 1t should cease to require those professors
to teach our future officers the dOctrine OF obe-
dience and nsils int the minds OF the cadets the
new doctrine of discretion. If congress desired
to invite widespread characterization in Its army
| 1t bad only to PASS this bill This was consider.
| ton so supreme and had so impressed Mr.. Will
| sons mind, that he had not cared to analyze tho
| motive of Gen. Porter. Such analysis had been
made by others, and he would leave to Others
the duty Of presenting the, motive IN iis
| full aspect. 1t simply intensified Mr.. Wilsont
appreciation of the ofiepse, but did not magnify
| Mr.. Henderson took the floor, but on the sugges.
| tiOn of Mr.. Logan, gave way for motion that the
that he thought the senate could get through with
the bill to-day If debate should begin early. The
| senate then lat Bib y. M went into executive
session, aud when the doors were re-opened ad-
iOurnod,