Year: 1878




Nothing was done yesterday by the Board
of Inquiry in Fitz John Porter's case, and
the meeting of the Board was adjourned
over to next Monday. At the time of the
last preceding adjournment it was expected
that General Pope would appear as wit
ness yesterday. Instead of his appearance
q despatch from him was read declining to
testify except on a subpoena. We think it
is entirely proper for General Pope
to take this position. In the orig
inal trial and condemnation it is well
known that General Pope was the
real. though not the nominal, accuser
of General Porter. He is a sort of
party in interest, and is therefore quite ex-
cusable for not wishing to appear as a vol
untary witness. He cannot be supposed to
desire the reversal of sentence which he
was the principal agent in procuring. If
he retains his strong original bias against
General Porter his voluntary testimony on
the side of the government might be attrib-
uted to improper motives, and voluntary
testimony in vindication of Porter would
be stretch of magnanimity which ought
not to be expected of him under the circum-
stances.


General Pope's position as voluntary
witness would be anomalous and embarrass-
ing Not appearing as witness for either
side, there would be great confusion as to
the rights of cross-examination. The party
which summons a witness is precluded
from discrediting his testimony by rigor-
GUS cross-questioning. If General Pope
had consented to appear as voluntary
witness there would have been conflict and
confusion between the rights which attend
the examination in chief and the rights
which belong to the cross-examination.
He has evinced very proper prudence and
discretion in declining to put himself in SO
anomalous q position. He declares his per-
feet willingness to appear on q subpoena,
and this is all that either side has any right
to expect of him.


The state of the trial in respect to Gen
eral Pope's testimony is odd and peculiar
It was the hope and expectation of General
Porter's counsel that General Pope would
be called as witness on the part of the
government, and there was nothing which
they so much desired as an opportunity to
cross-examine him. When this wish was
thwarted by the failure of the government
Porter expressed their desire that Gen
eral Pope should appear as witness.
The government so far yielded as to
consent that request should be
sent to General Pope that he would
come and testify, and the court was
adjourned for q sufficient length of time to
enable him to make the journey from Fort
Leavenworth to New York. His refusal to
appear as a voluntary witness necessitates
another adjournment. If the counsel of
Porter ask that Pope be subpenaed as a
witness on their side the request will un-
doubtedly be granted; but they do not
want him as q witness whom they cannot
cross-examiue. They know we'll enough
that his bias is against them and that their
only means of bringing out the facts which
they hope to prove by him is by subjecting
him to sharp cross-examination. 1t seems
to us that the government is bound in fair
ness to subpoena General Pope as q witness
for its own side. From his position at the
time when the accusation was laid he
should know more Of the situation than
any other witness, and his direct testimony
would naturally be adverse to Porter. It
is the simplest justice that Porter's counsel
should have an opportunity to cross-ex-
anime him. The Board of Inquiry should
have no other object than to do right, and
it is the clear right of General Porter to
have the testimony of the chief actor and
directing mind at the time when the alleged
offence was committed. It would not be in
the interest of impartial justice for General
Pope to be brought here in such way as
would protect him from cross-examination
by Porter's counsel. We trust, therefore,
that the government will consent to SUBJ
pnna him as its own witness.