St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-07-07
THE FrTZ JOHN Porter VETO.

Gen. Fitz John Porter may extract some
little comfort from his long contest and its
conclusion. He may feel that he was excul-
pated by both houses of congress, by
majority of the best military minds of the
nation, by the people at large, and that such
condemnation as he has received has been
inflicted on him by one mantle President
of the United States. His prayer for relief
has been denied not by the nation but by
one person. Grant, Rosecrans, Slocum
and other eminent military men
have not hesitatcd to assert en-
phatically their belief in his innocence.
Both houses Of congress conceded with
this view, and this was justification of him
to the utmost possible extent. When he
has thus been endorsed the opinion of one
man, clothed with temporary authority, can
not in the least alter the moral verdict as to
his innocence. Even Arthur did not veto
the action of congress, on the ground that
the charges against Porter were true. On
this point he expressed no opinion. He took
the position that the course of congress was
unconstitutional and that it had no right to
interfere and set aside the findings of
military court This fact, together
with the one that the popular
branch of congress over-rode the veto of the
President. and that the senate came very
near doing the same thing is sufficient to as
sure Porter and his friends that the result is
one that in no sense whatever reflects on
his patriotism, his courage or his judgment,
and that in the estimate of the great public
at large he has been vendicated. He has not
been restored to the rank of which he was
deprived, but this in no wise reflects I'M
fayorably upon his record. Congress de.
cided that he had been uniustly treated, but
the Executive refused to ratify the action ON
what he claims to be legal grounds.
1t may be that Arthur was sincere in his
declaration, but it will be extremely difficult
to find an impartial observer who will admit
that such was the fact. 1t is a new thing in
the workings of our system when the Execu-
tive sets himself up as judicial tribunal to
pass on the action of the Legislative branch.
Unouestionably the assertion as to the I'M
con stitutionality of the action was q subter-
fuge. There is judicial branch of the gov
eminent which is appointed and paid for
passing on the constitutional character of
legislation. 1t is not in the functions of the
President to sit on the woolsack, and enun-
ciate judicial opinions. Even if it were,
there might be a belief on the part of the
people that Mr.. Arthur is not
fitted by Training or natural tendencies to
exercise judicial Sl2srvision over the acts of
the national legfussure. He is a gentleman
who a few yeara Mgo, held a small official
place in New York from which he was dis
charged ON account of incompetent and cor
rupt management. He was taken on the
national Republican ticket simply to secure
local strength and not in the least because
he was supposed to have any possible fitness
for the presidential place. He was made
President by the jealousies and hatred of
his party which found expression in the pis-
toll of Guiteau.
And now, this man who BY accident or
murder has reached his present place sits in
judgment-on the actions of congress, and
vetoes its conclusions on the grounds of its
nstitutionality. Gen. Porter should not
feel hurt at this phase of the matter. He can
SoicSG A4AiSSh Will tuS -cOHCiusiOu tudt u6
failed to obtain ju stice for the reason that q
hummer politician of New
York, elevated by accident into
the Presidential chair, concluded that
the action for his relief, asked for by ma
ton, and decreed to him by congress, was
unconstitutional. He may 'slay the fatter-
ing JUNCTION to his soul. /" thateve this ac-
H., al e@l..
does not venture to say that he is guilty, he
only says that the endeavor to right a wrong
is unconstitutional
Gen. Porter now knows that the nation
snd CONGRESS halisva him Innonant