The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-02
The Debate in Detail.

The Debate in Detail.
To the Western Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1.-The House, in commit
tee of the whole, resumed consideration of the
Fitz John Porter bill
Mr.. Wolford spoke in support of the bill. Crit
icizing Mr.. Horrs speech, he said the gentleman
from Michigan assumed that ex-confederates
were interested in this case and had argued that
self-respect should prevent them from taking
part in the debate The gentleman would have
more respect for ex-confederates if, like himself,
he had been in the front. He regretted the gen
tleman had expressed himself in such sentiments.
He had thought the ex-confederates were here
members of the American Congress, with the
right and duty to vote on every question. He
federate army had got so mad over
the fight that after twenty years he
could not do an act of justice to man who
fought against him. He hoped no man would
get up and say, 81 can't vote on this bill; 1 am
interested; 1 am still mad" He understood his
confederate friends were here loving the flag and
loving the country They were saying to-day
and forever that they had left behind them the
bitter feelings engendered by the war and
everything that divided the country. Were
men forever to stand and quarrel over old issuesl
Let Congress go forward and say it is ready to
do justice wipe out the wrong done an injured
man.
Mr.. Milliken INQUIRED whether he was to
understand that the gentleman asked the mem
bers to vote for the relief of Porter as an act of
conciliation to his confederate friends. If asked
on that ground he would vote for the relief.
Mr.. Wolford replied that he asked it,on the
highest grounds ever presented. He
demanded it as an act of justice
and proposed to demonstrate that it was an act
of justice to a long injured man. Applause
the Democratic side.
Mr. Wolford passed on to review the case. He
was frequently applauded by the members who
collected around him in the center aisle but his
remarks at the time were so low as to be inaudi-
BILE.
MIR. CALKINs's ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Calkins began his argument in opposition
to the bill by the statement that he knew there
was no doubt about its passage The book was
to be opened where the page was turn ed down
twenty years ago, but those who opposed that
action would not adopt the means which they
believe Gen. Porter used on the 9th and 29th of
August and refused to fire shot at the enemy,
but, on the contrary, they would adopt the more
gallant conduct of the brave soldiers sailors and
mariners on board the Cumberland when she
was swept fore and aft and was sinking. They
fired their guns at the enemy, manned
the yardarms and gave three cheers for
the country. Applause on the Republican side
Those who opposed the bill would go down, but
they went they would go down gallantly
They would fight until the last moment and dis
charge the last shot in the locker. This measure
might be called vindication, but he denied it,
More than 1000 900 voters in the country would
deny it. Speaking of General Grants letter he
said he knew Grant well; he had received his
early military experience under that leader. He
knew how Grants soldiers implicitly obeyed
him. and how their prompt obedience served to
give him the honors he now enjoyed. He
honored and loved Grant a brave soldier, but
when that soldier came out in favor of this bin
he could only say none of his officers ever dared
Republican side.l This '4:3Od order was to
attack the enemy. Porter did not attack,
his excuse being that there were
too many men in front of him.
Suppose there were million in front of him.
His superior had ordered him to attack and it
his duty to do so. Members We're asked by
this bill to say, in the language of the gentleman
from New York (AIr. Slocuml, that Abraham
Lincoln, Edwin w. Stanton and General Halleck
conspired together to organize a court to convict
Fitz John Porter, and the gentleman undertook
to attack the name of William T. Sherman to
help him out General Sherman was true to his
country, and while he and Stanton had difficulty,
yet, with generosity in late years, the General
had said he did not believe Stanton was untrue
to himself OF him. If these scenes were to be
re-enacted here, there might come a time
when the bugle blast of the Grand Army of the
Republic, by the side of their camp fires, would
ask General Sherman to come out of re-
tirement and lead them again to victory, as he
did before applause on the Republican side).
He was asked to write where James A. Garfield,
twenty-five years ago, wrote Guilty" the
words "Not guilty" to march to the sacred dust
of Abraham Lincoln, who saved the country
from destruction, and ware he wrote ZAP
proved" write the word ~"Reversed. The
House might write these words if it desired, but
the people would reverse its writing, and spit
upon it and spurn it. Applause on the Repub-
[ican side
SPEECH OF MR.. PHELPS
Mr.. Phelps spoke in favor of the bill, and, in
regard to General Garfelds connection with the
matter, he read the joint resolution introduced
by him for the appointment of board of re-
view, and stated that he had priva te letters of
that gentleman which he could twist into an APP
proval of this bill as the other gentlemen had
twisted private letters into a disapproval of it,
Porter had his faults, but he was not guilty of
treason. If the members will forget that wound