Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-12

sionally interrupted by Messrs. Blair,
Call, and George. At that hour the
Senate went into executive session, and
when the doors were reopeasd ad-
journed till Monday.
House of Representative.
Mr.. Reed, Of Maine, offered = reso-
luton modifying the order making the
Fitz John Porter bill the continuing
special order from to-day until next
Thursday. so as to provide that the bill
shall not be considered until after the
second morning hour on each day.
MIR. Randall endeavored to have the
order further amended so that the pre-
yious question should be ordered on
Tuesday instead Of Thursday, but he
was unsuccessful, and Mr.. Reeds reso-
luton was adopted.
Mr.. Bingham. Of Pennsylvania, asked
leave to introduce a bill granting pen
sion Of $4,000 per annum to the widow
Of General W. S. Hancock, but Mr..
Beach, OF New York, objected.
Mr.. Wellborn, Of Texas, from the
Committee on Indian Affairs, reported
the Indian appropriation bill, and twas
referred 10 the Committee Of the
Whole.
In the second morning hour Dir.
Adams, of Illinois. on behalf Of the
Committee on Banking and Currency,
called up the bill to enable national
banking associations to increase their
capital stock and to change their names
or locations.
The bill was criticised by Mr.. Beach,
Of New York, because of excessive
yerbisge. and by Messrs. Anderson Of
Kansas, Reagan of Texas, and Weaver
Of Iowa, upon the general ground that
it conferred increased power Upon ma
tional banks.
The bill was passed-yeas, 100 !;
nays, 100.
Mr.. Adams entered a motion to re-
consider and to lay that motion on the
table. but the morning hour having ex-
PRED final action was not taken.
The House then. at . o'clock, went
into Committee Of the Whole on the
Fitz John Porter bill.
The debate was opened by Mr..
Haynes. Of New Hampshire, in support
of the bill. Nothing new, he thought.
could be brought forth in the discus
sion. The same old evidence so often
sifted was all that was in the case now.
Witnesses could be summoned who
would not be recognized as old ac-
qusintsnces. He could therefore only lay
down few general propositions in sup
port Of his views. lie contended that
a commanding officer at distance from
his superior must have some discretion
in e6eying the orders Of that superior.
The commander of an isolated corps
who would involve his command in
destruction in blind obedience to the
orders Of a distant superior would be
properly branded as incompetent and
unworthy. In his action Porter had
fulfilled the military requirements Of
the situation. whatever the condition Of
his troops might have been. The con-
dition Of the road and of the night had
been such that no experienced officer
would have placed his force Of 1900
men upon that road.
Mr.. Steele, Of Indiana, opposed the
bill. beginning with the question
" What in the thunder are we here for:
why are we discussing Fit John Por-
ter :" He held that if it were admit
ted that Porter had not been disloyal
to his country he had at least been dis
loyal TO General Pope, and hence his
conviction was deserved.
Mr.. Bragg, Of Wisconsin,. defended
Porter and supported the bill.
The speeches OF these three gentle
men consumed the days session, and
at AS P. NJ. the committee rose and
the House adjourned.