CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. (THE FITZ-JOHN PORTER CASE.) 



245 



ington via Philadelphia in 1861. You are mistaken 

 as to that. Fitz-Jonn Porter was not in Harrisburg 

 at that time, nor did he reach there until after the 

 President's proclamation calling for 75,000 troops in 

 April, 1861. The officers who were detailed to ac- 

 company the President were Gen. Sumner, then Col. 

 Sumner, and Gen. John Pope, then Capt. Pope. 

 What their views were with regard to Mr. Lincoln's 

 change of route I do not recollect, but certainly Fitz- 

 John Porter was not in Harrisburg at that tune nor 

 was he until six weeks after. 



" I believe Fitz-John Porter to have been a 

 loyal soldier of the Union, and whatever mis- 

 takes he committed were of the head and not 

 of the heart ; and therefore in justice to him 

 I make this statement." 



Mr. Lapham, of New York, said: "Mr. 

 President, I desire to detain the Senate for 

 but a very few moments before the vote is 

 taken on this measure. 



"The decision of the court-martial which 

 pronounced Col. Porter guilty was made on 

 the 10th of January, 1863. On the 21st of 

 that month it received the approval of Presi- 

 dent Lincoln. That court-martial, which is 

 admitted to have been a legally constituted 

 body, composed of able men, was in session a 

 period of forty-five days. They sat here in the 

 city of Washington, almost in sight of the 

 scenes of the transactions which constituted 

 the basis of the charges against Ool. Porter.' 

 ~ had all the facilities possible to ascer- 



n the exact condition of affairs, and they 

 the recollection of men fresh from the 

 ?ene of action. That judgment stands unre- 

 rersed, and under the law irreversible. So far 



it has been executed, it is beyond recall by 

 my power on earth ; so far as it is unexecuted, 

 " President of the United States, on the ap- 

 lication of Gen. Porter, has granted him a par- 

 Ion, the exercise of the pardoning power being 

 ~ie only relief attainable. 



"The advisory or Schofield board was called 

 id investigated this case in the year 1878. 

 ?hey sat at West Point, and I desire to call 

 attention of the Senate to one of their find- 

 , which is the key to this whole question, 



my view of it. They say : 

 " The evidence of bad animus in Porter's case 

 ceases to be material in view of the evidence of his 

 soldierly and faithful conduct. But it is our duty^ to 

 say that the indiscreet and unkind terms in which 

 Gen. Porter expressed his distrust of the capacity of 

 his superior commander can not be defended. And 

 to that indiscretion was due, in very great measure, 

 the misinterpretation of both his motives and his con- 

 duct and his consequent condemnation. 



" Now, I am unwilling by my vote to assent 

 to the proposition that there was such a grave 

 indiscretion committed on the part of the 

 court-martial or on the part of the President 

 of the United States. The fact that Porter was 

 disloyal to his commanding officer is found by 

 this advisory board as a fact which can not be 

 excused, and that this is the foundation of the 

 whole of Porter's disobedience of the orders of 

 his superior commanding general. It all rests 

 there. Porter's fall was the ' first fruit of his 

 disobedience' and its legitimate result. 



"The advisory board committed a grave 

 error in saying that the court-martial were 

 guilty of an indiscretion or that President Lin- 

 coln was guilty of an indiscretion. Mr. Porter 

 was dismissed the service at a time when we 

 wanted generals, and when there was no other 

 reason for dismissing him but a conviction ; he 

 was guilty. We do not want any more gen- 

 erals now. He has, by the action of the Presi- 

 dent, been relieved from the sentence and ren- 

 dered eligible to office, but this bill proposes 

 to go further than that, and create a place for 

 him, an extra position not provided for by the 

 law as it now stands. I can not consent to that. 

 I would as quick think of going to the city of 

 Springfield, in Illinois, and tearing the granite 

 base from the monument which has been erect- 

 ed to the memory of our martyred President, 

 and razing it to the ground, as 1 would consent 

 to or aid in tearing his signature from the 

 judgment of the court-martial, as confirmed by 

 him and executed until its execution was ar- 

 rested by the interposition of the pardoning 

 power." 



Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts, said : " I do not 

 propose to enter at this late period upon a 

 discussion of this case, but it seems to me 

 proper that I should state very briefly the 

 views which will govern me and have already 

 governed me in casting my own vote. 



" I need not say that it has been one of the 

 most painful public responsibilities I have ever 

 encountered. I am bound by my duty as a 

 Senator to act upon a question which involves 

 the consideration of evidence relating to a sci- 

 ence ; relating to military transactions which 

 are very far removed from my own ordinary 

 experience and from the studies to which my 

 life has been given. 



" I suppose a soldier called upon to deal 

 with the question of the conduct of a lawyer 

 in a complicated patent cause, or a question in- 

 volving contingent remainders, would not find 

 himself much more puzzled than I have been 

 in attempting to master some of the details 

 which relate to the important, intricate, rapid 

 military operations of the three or four days 

 which have been under discussion in this de- 

 bate. But still I am forced to do my best, and 

 I am bound to do it conscientiously, fearlessly, 

 without regard to any personal consequences 

 or anything else but the fact and the law as 

 they shall appear to my .mind upon such study 

 as I have been able to give. 



"Now, Mr. President, what is the precise 

 attitude of this case? In the year 1863 a mili- 

 tary tribunal, composed of able and upright' 

 soldiers, condemned this officer for grave mili- 

 tary offenses, sentenced him to be cashiered 

 and sentenced him to be incapable of holding 

 any office of honor, trust, or profit under the 

 United States during the remainder of his life. 

 I regard that judgment as the final judgment of 

 a constitutional court. It is true that courts- 

 martial, whether in the army or in the navy, 

 like all other human mechanisms, are a very 



