The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-14

soldiers were receiving paltry pensions of So a
month, how could the Senate pass bill to
give a salary OF $4,000 a year to a man who, in
the hour of peril, had failed to perform duty
to his country The war for the Union had been
fought to preserve a great government, and to
preserve equality and Justice If this bill passed.
and this wrong were done, it would be declaring
to the world that those who failed in the hour of
trial were men who should now be honored, and
that the glory of the Union army could as well
be maintained by hOnors lost as by hOnOrs won.
That principle would have Il most demorazing
effect upon our army and upon the country.
The idea of placing such a man i'll his position
was revolving to Mr., Logan's notion.
Mr. Conger expressed a desire to amend the
bill by striking out the word the" and inserting
the words IAN additional before the words
retired list of the army" his object being. he
said, to save from disgrace the regular retired
list of the army, and have separate retired list
provided for General Porter and those like him.
The chair decided the bill was not subject to
amendment at this time, except for additional
sections.
The bill was then read third time and passed
80 yeas, % nays. The result received
with mingled applause and Kisses from the gal
leries. The vote was as follows
Yeas-Bayard Brown, Butler, Call, Coclrell Coke,
Colquitt Fair, Farley, Garland, Gibson German,
Groome, Hampton, Harris, Hoar, Jackson, Jonas
Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, Lamar, McPher-
SON. Maxey, Morgan, Pendleton. Pike, Pugh, Riddle
berger, Sabin, salisbury, Sewe Slater, Vance, Nor
Nays-Aldrieh, Allison Blair Bowen, Conger, Cul-
lom, Dawes, Dolph, Edmunds, Frye Harrison, Haw-
Miller of California Gi.eehell Morrison, Palmer,
Platt, Sherman NanWyck and Wilson.
The preamble was then passed-33 yeas, %
nays. During the vote Mr.. Miller of New
York, expressed wish to vote, and
without objection transferred Mr.. Camdens
sent Mr.. Miller then voted no" Before the
preamble was passed Mr.. Hawley expressed a
wish that the majority would spare the Senate a
vote annulling the decision of cOurt-martial,
which was as lawfully constituted an authority
as the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr.. Conger remarked it was disgrace enough
to have been member of the body which would
pass such bill
Mr.. Groome-Order.
If that were disgrace, or honor enough if that
were honor; but that preamble was something
no senator should vote for.
The preamble to the bill as passed rectes that
the board of officers convened by the President
to examine and report upon the case of General
Porter stated that justice required the President
to annul the findings and sentence
of the court-martial in General Porters
case, and to restore him to the position
from which the sentence deprived him, such
restoration to take effect from the date of his
dismissal from the service; that the President
had RENTED so much of the sentence as
disqualified General Porter from holding office,
and that in order to do justice to General Porter
1t was enacted, etc.
The bill then authorizes the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate to APP
point General Porter to the position Of colonel
in the army, with the same grade and rank as
held by him at the time of dismissal and au-
thorizes the President, in his discretion to place
General Porter on the retired list of that
grade, General Porter, however, to receive no
compensation or allowance prior to his appoint
ment under the act Adjourned.
The bill, as reported from the Senate com
mittee, was amended by striking out
the provision for the restoration
of General Porter ITO all rights, titles
and privileges of the rank held by him at the
time of his dismissal from the army" This
amendment necessitates the return of the bill
to the House.