The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-28
FITZ JOHN PORTER'S CASE.
Confirmation Ofthe Debate in the House
on the Bill for His Relief.
Outline of the Speeches For and Against the
Measure-COmmendatiOn for Cen
erals Grant and Logan.

WASHINGTON, Jan. ZO-IHe HOUSE WcnJ lH1O
committee of the whole, Mr.. Springer in the
chair, on the Fitz John Porter bill.
Mr.. Ray, of New York, concluded his speech in
support of the bill, saying: II stand here in the
field once more in behalf of Fitz John Porter,
and in the name of the silent, dead soldiers VINO
sleep where no sound shall awake them to glory
again. In the business cries of the day voices
come I'D and appeal to me, in the silent hours of
the night voices come up and appeal to me to do
Justice to Fitz John Porter, and if it is not done
on this earth, 1 believe when the whole armies of
the republic shall be gathered in the bright
world above, and when the drum shall beat,
there will be but one voice that will refuse to do
Justice to singing the praises of Fitz John Por-
ter. That voice will be the voice of John Pope"
Applause on the Democratic side.
In opposing the bill Mr.. Thomas denied the
right of Congress to pass upon the case, and de-
clared the attempt to override the decision of
one of the constitutional tribunals of the coun-
try an absolute violation of the Constitution of
the United States. The evidence before the
House proved conclusively that Porter had been
fairly, fully, and justly tried and convicted.
From the speeches made in favor of the bill it
would seem it was Pope who was on trial, and
ne WdHUeu W say d WOIu III ICSdIu W Vo viz
slurs hurled at a man whose reputation for valOr,
gallantry and ability stood above that of any
man who assailed him here. Who was John
Pope9 He was born at the seat of government
in the Territory of Illinois, educated at West
Point, breveted three times for gallantry
in the field in Mexico, had never turned
his back on the foe nor quailed
in the face of his enemies. Though
sometimes defeated, it was because of insubordi-
nation and treachery, and, to his mind, the quail
fed treason of some of his subordinate officers,
and now it is claimed he ought to be blamed
when he could not succeed, when the very man
for whom the gentlemen were pleading sulked in
his tent because the man who had graduated be-
fore him at West Point was his superior officer.
There were other men during the war who had
skulked in their tents. On July %, 1864, when
Mcpherson fell while leading his forces, the army
of the Tennessee was in disorder. There came a
man with coal-black hair and flaming eyes, blaz-
ing out patriotism, who took command and hurl-
ed back the force of Hood. That man was John
A. Logan. Applause on the Republican side.
Then there was sulking in the tents, and though
Logan had rescued the army and gained a mag
nificent victory, he had the bar sinister upon his
escutcheon because he had not graduated at
West Point, and three days after he saved
the army a West Pointer was put in his
place, but he did not sulk, because he was a
volunteer soldier who went out to save his
country from traitors. Not so with Fitz John
Porter, who was educated at West Point and
taught that fidelity to one of the graduates of
that institution was a higher duty than fidelity
to his commanding officer and country. Who
were the men urging the passage of this billl
They were the followers of Mcclellan, a man
whose removal filed the heart of Fitz John
Porter with venom and hatred toward every
body. Who was Mcclellan! He was a man
taken up by the Copperheads and Sons of Lib
erty and run for the presidency against Abra-
ham Lincoln. The men who proposed to sustain
Fitz John Porter and cast a shadow of disgrace
upon Lincoln and the members of the court were
men who. standing in the rebel line. shouted.
HHurrah for Mcclellan 1t came with bad grace
from those men to turn back the page of history
and wipe out the record of the gallant men who
constituted the court. In the name of Abraham
Lincoln, in the name of the court, in the name
of the great Secretary of War,
in the name of the men who
fell in the battle, Aug, %, 1862, he protested
against inc passage Of the bill. He protested
against it because it was making treason and in
subOrdination honorable and putting the bar
sinister of condemnation upon the record of men
who saved and served the nation. Applause on
the Republican side.
Mr. Bedford, of Coll want to know
whether the gentleman's Judgment in the Fitz
John Porter case is better than the greatest
soldier this world has seen from the time of
Julius Caesar down to this time. l mean
Ulysses Grant. Applause on the Democratic
side.
Mr.. Follett had hoped the question would not
be discussed as a political one, but he discovered
in the speech of the gentleman from Illinois
fThomasl the animus of the case. 1t was not
treason against the government that Fitz John
Porter was charged with, but treason against
Pope. Therefore, the House was to be divided
in considering a question involving a
question of the right of an Ameri
can citizen into the p~artisans of
Porter and Pope. The gentleman from Illinois
(Thomas) had denounced West Point and the
men who had received a military education
there. To do this he had to denounce the men
who had led the Union forces to victory. He did
not mean to say there were no gallant volunteer
hnA NhA rnnA xr1a AAa % III E.a-A III
led the forces to victory, were the men who
graduated at West Point, and if the Union had
not had them there would not be to-day any re-
jOicing over the great victories. 1t was charged,
and charged solely for the purpose of accom-
plishing an object, that Fitz John Porter came
to the House to present his claim to a body COM
posed L in part of men once in rebellion against
the government. These men were here en-
titled to the same rights, the same privileges.
the same immunities that every other citizen is
entitled to. He for one would not,
as an American citizen, seek every
opportunity to smack in the face the
over whom the flag of the government
foated. If there are any men on the floor capa-
BILE of passing impartially on the merits of this
controversy, they were the men who had not
their prejudices, passions and feelings aroused
by personal antagonism between two men, each
of whom occupied a conspicuous position. Jap
plause on the Democratic side.
Mr.. Bedford said he had the courage and bold
ness to do what was just, without regard to any
popular prejudice. General Grant was the great
est soldier that had appeared since Julius Caesar.
Pompey was conquered, Hannibal was con
quered; but Grant never lost a battle. General
Grant had fully examined this case, and said in
Justice had been done General Porter. On the
judgment of that great and wonderful soldier he
proposed to predicate his vote in favor of this
bill. Applause on the Democratic side. He
believed in doing justice to a man. 1t was the
sweetest attribute of humanity; it was the great
est attribute of Gcd Almighty himself.
He proposed to bury the prejudices of
the past and do justice to a man
whom the greatest General on the
face of the earth declared to be wronged and
outraged. He would follow Grants judgment
against that of captains and colonies of militia.