The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1884-07-18
F1rz JoHH
Che President vetoes the Bill for the Re-
lief OF Gen. Porter.

lief OF Gen. Porter.
The president on Wednesday returned to the
House the Fitz John Porter bill with his obiec-
tons.
Attorney General Brewster had submitted to
the president in compliance with the ~latter's
request, q long and carefully prepared opinion
uponthe bill for the restoration of Fitz John
Porter to the army, in which he expressed the
opinion that the bill is clearly unconstitutional.
The President took the same view of the con-
stitutionality of the bill and said:
There are other causes that defer mo from
giving this bill the sanction of my approval.
The judgment OF the court-martial, by which,
more than twenty years since. Gen. Fitz John
Porter was tried and convicted, was pronounced
by a tribunal composed of nine general officers
of distinguished character and ability. Its in
vestlSatlon of the charges of whlchIt found &C
cused guilty was thorough and conscientious,
and it's findings and sentence in due course of
law approved by Abraham Lincoln, then presi-
dento of the United States. Its legal competency,
its jurisdiction of the accused and of the subjects
all its proceedings are matters which have never
been brought in question. Its judgement there
fore, is final and conclusive in its character.
The supreme court of the United States has re-
Gently declared that a court martial such as
this was 'ts the organism provided by law and
clothed with the duty of administering justice
in this class of cases. Its judgments, when ap-
proved, rest on the same basis, and are sur
rounded by the same considerations which give
conclusiveness to the judgments of other tribu-
nails, including as we'll the lowest as the high
est" 1t follows, accordingly, that when a law
fully constituted court martial has duly de-
clared its findings and ls sentence, and the
same have been duly approved, neither the
president nor congress has any power to set
them aside. The existence Of such q power
is not openly. asserted, nor, per-
haps, is it necessarily impliedin the provisions
of the bill which is before me, but when it's
enacting clauses are read in the light of the re-
citals ofits preambleit will be seen that it seeks
in effect the practical annulment of the find
ings and sentence of a competent court mar
tal A conclusion at variance with these
findings has been reached after investigation
by a board consisting of three officers of the
army. This board was not created in pursuance
of any statutory authority, and was powerlesa
to compel the attendance of witnesses or to
pronounce Judgment which could be lawfully
exercised. The officers who composed it, in
their report to the secretary Of war, dated
March IS, 1879, state that in their opin-
ion "%justice requires ~ y \ such action
as may be necessary to annul and set aside the
findings and sentence of the court martial in
the case of Maj. Gen. Fitz John Porter, and to
restore him to the position of which their son
tence deprived him, such restoration to take
effect from the date of his dismissal from the
service" The provisions of the bill now I'M
der consideration are avowedly based on the
assumption that the findings of the court mar
tial have been discovered to be erroneous. But
1t will be borne in mind that the investigation
which is claimed to have resulted III this dis
Svent TO which these findings related,
and under circumstances that made
1t impossible to reproduce the evidence
on which they were based. 1t seems to
me that the proposed legislation would estab-
lish q dangerous precedent, calculated to i'm
peril in no small measure the binding force
and effect of judgments of various tribunals
established under any constitution and laws.
! have already, in the exercise of the par
doning power with which the president is
vested, RENTED the continuing penalty that
made it impossible for FItz John Porter to hold
an Office of trust or profit under the govern
ment of the United States, but l am unwilling
to give my sanction to any legislation which
shall practically annul and set at naught the
solemn aud deliberate conclusions of the trib-
unal by which he was convicted, and of the presi-
dent by whom its findings were examined and
approved.
(Signed,] CHESTER A.. ARTHUR,
Executive Mansion, July 2, 1854.
When the veto was read in the house, Gen.
Slocum then rose and asked if it was in order
to call for a vote on the passage of the bill over
the presidents veto The speaker replied that
under the constitution he was required at once
to present the bill to the house for a vote upon
it unless the house chose
SehAS oNSS estoA
He then asked if the vote should be by yeas
and nays, when Mr.. Tucker and Gen. Keifer
arose simultaneously and said that the consti-
tuition required that it should be by yeas and
nays. The clerk then called the roll and the
vote proceeded with profound attention from
both sides. The bill received the constitutional
majority of two-thirds 16S to Is.
The affirmative vote on the bill is exactly fiji
teen less than that on the bill when it originally
passed the house. The negative vote is just
the same. Fifteen Republicans voted with the
Democrats, and the Democrats voted solidly
for the bill. The fifteen Republicans were:
Colorado, Burleigh of New York, Jeffords of
Mississippi, Laird of Nebraska, Long and Ly-
man of Massachusetts,, Phelps of New Jersey,
Poland of Vermont. Ranney of Massachusetts,
Ray of New York, Rockwell of Massachusetts,
and, A. Herr Smith of Pennsylvania. Two
thirds majority was not obtained in the senate
and therefore Gen. Porter will have to 'wait a
lite longer"