The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1884-02-06
TIE Frrz JOHN PORTER BILL.

THE F1Tz JOHN PORTER BILL.
The overwhelming majority by
which the Fitz John Porter bill
passed the House, is an endorsement
of that gentleman's integrity as an
officer. that cannot fail to have its
influence In tho Senate. The bill
will doubtless pass that body to-day,
although Logan, 1t is now again re-
ported, will make the greatest effort
of his life to defeat it. He is prepar-
ing q speech upon the bill which will
require three days for its delivery.
This will be rough Oh Porter, but
will be much rougher on the English
language. Logan is as vengeful as
an Indian, and he will leave no
stone unturned to defeat the bill.
His success, of course will depend
altogether upon the support he will
receive from isRepublican brethren
in the. Senate. That he will COM
mand the aid of them all, is out of
the question. Logan labors. this
time. under the disadvantage of being
a candidate for the Presidency. This
fact of itself is enough to a%ntagonize
several Republican Senators WHO
will gladly embrace the opportunity
to down" the Illinois aspirant.
And, then again, the decided stand
which General Grant has taken on
the side of Porter will have its weight
among those who pin their faith
upon the judgment of that ex-
perienced soldier. Taking these
facts into consideration, it may be
safely assumed the Porter bill will
pass the Senate.
There is no political question in
volved in this case, yet it has been
argued In the House, and probably
will be in the Senate, with all the
acrimony of partisanship. The rea-
son of this lies in the fact that Gen
eral Garfield was a member OF the
court-martial which convicted Por-
ter, and somehow the admirers OF
the murdered President imagine that
II Justice is done to Porter, Garfield
will be condemned. This assump-
ton is entirely wrong. for when Por-
ter was tried it was impossible for
him to procure the evidence which
demonstrates his innocence, and so
no imputation al really attach to
the court for its findings in the light
of the proofs it then had at hand.
The only question now is whether
the court erred in c0nvicting Porter.
Let US look at the facts. The
charges against Porter of which he
was found guilty were: First, DISC
bedience of orders on the night OF
August q, 1862; second, misbehavior
in the presence of the enemy August
9, 1862. Up to this time General
Porter was regarded as n of the
best officers in the army. In several
holly contested fields he had stood
like q rock, hurting back the foe
with a valor which stamped him as
one who could not harbor q traitor
GUS thought in his heart. But Pope,
the then commanding General, and
who had succeeded Mcclellan, con.
the idea that Porter was deep
~ chagrined because Mcclellan
had been relieved, and that
he Porter carried his feelings so
far as to permit them to interfere in
the proper discharge Of his duty as
an officer. 1t was this supposed ami
mus that really had more to do in
causing Porter's conviction than the
proofs which it was claimed estab-
lished his guilt.
The first charge against Porter is
based on the following facts: On the
night of the. 9th of August Porter
was at Warrentor, Pope at Brlstoe
Station. Thus situated, Pope sent
an order to march at one
o'clock that night, aud join him by
daylight. Porter did not move until
= later hour, giving IS his reasons
that the night was dark, the roads
bad and encountered with wagons.
and the fords dangerous, If not inn
passable. All this was true, and as
no harm resulted from a delay which
was shown to be unavoidable, there
should have been no charge and nc
The charge Of misbehaviOr is a
more serious one. This was made at
he second battle Of Bull Run on the
afternoon of August -, 1862. In this
,attle Pope assumed the situation to
,e as shown in the following dia-
ram:
Jackson, G2,OD men. /
In !