Year: 1867

ne AtaSt ~ OtaftEhA A1az BDaaN


-POpe's Yeraeity and Hollis Justice


How Military Commissions are
} Influenced. ,5lE ta 4.las zsa


Gen. w. 3. franklin, an able corps COM
mander in the Army OF the Potomac, wrote
Gen. Grant in September last, urging him
to favor Fitz John Porter's application for
review of the proceedings of Military
Court by which he was cashiered from the
service IN 1858. Among the reascns as
signed by Gen. franklin for this course are
the following, concerning Pope and Holts
two of the leading conspirators against
Porter's character, which will strike all
impartial minds as amply sufficient;


81 saw Porter in Pope's company the
day after the latter's defeat at Bull Run,
and afterwards, until we arrived in front
Of Washington. l know that they were on
very cordial terms, and that Pope on some
occasions advised with him confdentially.
talked good deal myselfwith Pope, and
l think that if he had had at that time
any feeling that Porter had acted badly, I
would have learned it then; but I had no
suspicion that he felt aggrieved by anything
that Porter or any one who was then near
him had done. At Fairfax Courthouse,
the day that we arrived at Washington,
noticed that Pope was particularly in good
spirits and cordial with Porter. I have,
therefore, always thought the attack on
Porter was the result of an afterthought,
and that the charges we're not original with
Pope. ~ az


During the trial l thought it proper to
inform Porter that Generals J. F. Rey-
nolds, George II. Thomas and myself,
would, if requested, go before the court and
swear that we would not believe Pope or
Roberts under oath. had consulted Gen
eral Reynolds before l made the PROPOSE
tion. lie consented to go himself, and
Thoughts s7neral Thomas would have no
hesitat,er Is giving such evidence. | was
myself well convinced of Gen. Thomas
opinion of Pope's veracity from what had
often heard him say before the war. Porter
declined to call us up to give this evidence,
on the ground that the court appeared so
well disposed towards him, and his case
was going on so well, that he did not wish
to irritate the court by an attempt TO break
down the evidence of the principal prose
cutors. The sequel showed that he made
a serious mistake.


But l think that the most equitable rea-
son for a review of Porter's case is this
The Judge Advocate General, Holt, was
the Judge Advocate of the court That
was right enough. But no one will DENY
that Judge Advocate of a military court,
when prisoner is defended by able coun-
sci, becomes TO great extent prosecutor,
and as such necessarily is based against the
prisoner. To say that General Holt was
! preiudiced against Porter, Il merely to say
thathe is like other men, and that he was so
prejudiced the whole proceeding shows.
But an abstract of the proceedings and
finding and sentence of the court had to be
made by the Judge Advocate General for
presentation to the President Of the United
| States, upon which flor he necessarily
could not read the evidence) he was to
make up his mind az to the guilt or inno-
| cence of the accused. Was it right, proper
| or decent that this abstract should be made
| up blythe very man who had done his best
| TO convict the prisoner? Did not such a
| proceeding prevent the President from
learning any extenuating circumstance, oil
finding out anything weak in the evidence
if any such there were? Did it not, in
fact, take away any chance from Porter
which he might have had, had cool, un.
biased person, of legal knowledge made
this abstract instead of General Holt?


| The whole business seems to me like 8
prosecuting attorney passing sentence upor
a prisoner in civil court, Immediately
after the speeches of counsel. | think tn,
fact that Mr.. Lincoln had only Gen. Holt


abstract TO guide him in making mp al
opinion on the proceedings OF that court i


enough to inValidate the whole thing"