The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-21
SHALL PORTER BE RESTORED?
The House DevOtes Whole Day to Debate,
but Fails to Reach Vote.

WASHINGTON Jan. 1.-the House met to-
day to debate the Fitz John Porter bill.
Mr. Cutcheon a member of the minority com
mittee on military affairs, said it was embarrass
ing to have the opinions of military men so dis
tinguished as the gentlemen from California and
New York (Messrs. Rosecrans and Slocum) to
differ with them in regard to military matters,
but the embarrassment disappeared when he re-
membered the principal question in the case is
not matter of military strategy, but the sitting
of facts and laws Referring to the denial of
Grants letter, he asserted that one would go
further than himself in admiration
of that great soldier, but he could
not forget that for eight long years
General Grant sat in the presidential chair and
Fitz John Porter stood knocking, in season and
out of season, at the door of the White House,
asking Grant to permit him new hearing. He
could not forget that Grant had said in 1863 and
1874 that he had examined the papers submitted,
and was not prepared to grant the review asked.
But in 1881 when both houses of Congress were
in the hands of the opposition, and when the
bill was pending before Congress to reappont
General Grant as general Of the army and place
him the retired list there came a burst of
sunlight, as if from heaven, like the light which
struck down Paul at Damascus. All at once the
light broke on his mind and he found that for
eighteen years he had been doing Fitz John Por-
ter an injustice. Applause on the Republican
side. Therefore, the opinion of General Grant
could not have the influence on him that it other
wise would have
Passing on to give q brief outline of the events
which led to Porters dismissal, Mr.. Cutcheon
said that Porters action could only be explained
by his hatred to General Pope. When his coun-
try cried, ''Fitz John Porter, this way!' he
thought it was the voice of Pope, and not his
country, and refused to go. If there was ever
time when q mans country called for him, when
the destiny of the republic hung trembling in
the balance it was on the 9th of August 1862.
If there ever a time when military leader
had need to feel that the pulses of his subordi-
nate officers beat in unison with his it was
the 9th of August, 1862, when Porter disc
beyed his orders. Two reasons were assigned
for not doing so-that the night was dark
and the road bad Porter could not march
that night, but Stonewall Jackson moved with
his entire corps. Lee marched that night, but
this brilliant leader Of the Union army could
not march, because forsooth, it was dark. The
Bethehemic seemed to have fallen upon Porters
corps that day-''Peace earth and good will
on the other side" During the battle of Aug
% where was Porter} Reclining under the trees
two miles and q half from the front. Where
was the finest corps in the arniyl Gone into
camp for the night Cowardice was no excuse
for Porter had shown that he was a brave man
Ignorance was no excuse, for he was trained
soldier He had not the excuse of not knowing
the will of his commander for the order was ex
pliCit. Already clemency has been exercised to-
ward Fitz John Porter. His disabilities have
been removed He stood as free American
citizen. ass E 1 80
Were General Garfield alive this bill would not
be here, 1t would never receive his signature
He honored the gentleman from New York Mr.
Slecum) for his devotion to a lifelong friend, but
this hour should be given to law and justice, and
not to sympathy or tears. except tears for the
brave men who persisted through Porter's in
surbordinatOn. Applause on the Republican
side.
Mr. Slocum-I understood the gentleman to
say that If Garfield was iynS tits bill would not
be here. If he will refer 20 House report IA
second section, Fortythird Congress, he will find
S SHaV 'dnes "A; Grfed was the father Of this
ell' lApPla use on the Democratic side. Send
for your 1l report. This bill was brought up by
2 narLoid himself and the official records OF Con
So 8 will show it.
- Mr.. Calkins-The gentleman refers to the
Mr. SlocupA-I refer to this: / say that James
A. Garfield introduced resolution appointing
this board [ieering laughter and crles OF Oh,
| ON the Republican sidel, and the board was APP
nointed pursuant to his desires, and If he Is go
ing to refuse his own bantling, or his friends are
ooing to do it. let him start and DO So
| In reDly to Mr.. SlocumS remarks, MI CuIcn-
.eon ouoted from the letter from General Gar
1 field to the Hon. j. d. Cox dated Feb 10, 1851
which stated that he was stunned by the decis-
1 ion of the Schofeld board -.
- Mr.. Slocum-For the first time in my life l
stand the floor to hear Republicans attack the
military reputation Of General e era E Shon e
Il tleman who has just taken his seat has done 1t,
/ and in the most violent manner.
lex Mr.. Cuteheon~-No man, living or dead, holds
General Grants military ability higher than
do, a.... az. q, :.
language correctly, it was an Impeachment
either Of his integrity or his military Fsp4a t
Congress General Garfield introduced resolu
ton asking the appointment Of board to in1eS
tgate this case, and that board was appointed;
Mr.. Greenleaf spoke in support OF the bill
claiming that the circumstances in the case
| Porter not only justified him in disregardn
Pope's orders, but that he would have bee
/ liable to censure if he obeyed them. The oil
, couplet,
, You will and you WON'T
: You'll be damned if you do
! You'll be damned if you don't
Pretty closely described Porter's position on til