4-73 : .772. LOGtAN Hon, John A, L06AN SeHATC or US. March 13. idft4 CFiTX-JoHH Porter! 1664 The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030923282 FITZ-JOHN PORTER. SPEECH OF HOIST. JOHN A. LOGAN, OF ILLINOIS, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, Thtjbsday, Maeoh i3, 1884. Cornell University Library E473.772 .L83 Fitz-John Porter. olin 3 1924 030 923 282 WASHINGTON. 1884. SPBEOH OF HON. JOHN A. LOGAN The Senate, a3 in Coi^imittee of the Whole, having under consideration the bill (H. K. 1015) for the relief of Fitz-John Porter- Mr. LOGAN said: Mr. Peesident : In 1865, when war had ceased, when our citizens were no longer aroused by the distant rumbling of artillery, when blood had ceased to flow, and the good women of our country, as ministering angels, had ceased to smooth the brow of the weary and wounded sol- dier, when all breathed freely once more, we then had reason to sup- pose that all things necessarily connected with the prosecution of the war against rebellion would remain undisturbed; and that all proceed- ings on the part of those in charge of national affairs which had been conducted in accordance with the laws and the Constitution were set- tled forever upon principles of equity and justice. In the prosecution of the war against treason they believed they were preserving to future generations a great government, and that all nations of the earth might receive beneficial lessons from the course pursued by those who had maintained the. national unity and supremacy. We did not believe that the history as it was then honestly made would be reversed, that the judgment of courts fairly, legally, and honestly entered would in after years find a Congress that would set them aside and rewrite the history of the trial; not only rewrite it, but write it down against those who preserved the Government and in favor of those who failed at a perilous moment, that, too, at a time when all the power and the patriotism should have been combined for the purpose of producing one grand result for the benefit of mankind. TRIED BY A. LEGALLY CONSTITUTBD COUKT. Taming back the wheel of time to 1863 we find the trial of Fitz-John Porter by a legally constituted court for the disobedience of orders law- ftilly issued to him by his superior and commanding officer. In that trial forty-five days were consumed and many witnesses were heard. The court determined the case against him and dismissed him from the service of the United States. That court was composed of nine officers, a part of whom were learned in the law, and a majority of them learned in military science. That sentence was approved by the then President of the United States. But, sir, what is the scene presented to the American people to-day? It is not the trial of an officer for failing to perform his duty during a battle or for failing to observe an order issued by a superior officer. No, sir; but it is the trial before the Congress of the United States in 1884 of the court that condemned this man; it is the trial of the President who signed the verdict, it is a trial of the living and the dead who per- formed their duties on that occasion. PORTBB AFPBAB8 AS A FBOSBCUTOB AGAINST THE COOET. Talk about this being a trial of Fitz-John Porter. Sir, he has beeo tried and convicted and twenty years have passed, but to-day he appears as a prosecutor before the Congress of the United States, against a court legally authorized, and against the martyred President of that time. It is the trial of those who are living; it is the trial of the graves of those- who are dead with a charge that they dealt unjustly by him; that they dealt with prejudice against him; that they violated the laws in their verdict; that they misconstrued the evidence; that they rendered an un- just and an unjustifiable decision against him. These are the questions that we are called upon to-day to determine. In deciding a question like this it would seem at least that it should be examined feirly, impartially, and be understood according to the- facts and the evidence on that trial, without either prejudice against those who tried or prejudice in favor of the man who was tried. We find, however, on one side of the Chamber a solid vote in favor of this bUl. Without desiring to criticise the vote of any one, Ihope I may be, pardoned, however for making one remark. It is perfectly nat- ural that when those who engaged in rebellion against a great Govern- ment like this felled of success and had themselves been pardoned by the Government should, without any examination of the evidence in the case whatever, feel a sympathy for those who had been during the war dismissed theserviceofthe United States. Why? Because they would naturally sympathise with them and say, ' ' I have been forgiven, there- fore I forgive everybody else for any dereliction during the war, no matter whether they were criminally guilty or not, especially when they were convicted for not marching or fighting against us. ' ' I can understand the sympathy that exists on that side of the Cham- ber for this man, but let me say that sympathy ought not to go to the violation of a great principle that underlies the very structure of our Government, and the regulating of the armies of the United States, their discipline and organization. APPLY THE EVIDENCE. I desire, however, to discuss this question first from a legal stand- point, applying the evidence thereto, and then ask the question whether any Senator in this Chamber, taking the whole case as it stands to-day, can lay his hand upon his heart and conscientiously say, " I am acting, according to the law and according to the tacts of the case " in voting, to restore Porter V First, what is the law in reference to the obedience of orders? A portion of it was read by my friend from Nebraska [Mr. Mandersoit]. but I will read the law as it has been laid down in works that are re- ceived as authority, both in England and America, in fact all over the civilized world, for the same principles apply everywhere so far as this- question is concerned. You will find in the authority quoted by the Senator from Nebraska known as De Hart the same language that he- read, which I quote. De Hart says this as a rule laid down in military law: Hesitancy in the execution of a military order is clearly, under most circum- stances, a serious oifense, and would subject one to severe penalties ; but actual disobedience is a crime which the law has stigmatized as of the Uigbest degree and against which is denounced the extreme punishment of death. (De Hart' p. 165.) •' The same author says further : "In every case, then, in which an order is not clearly in derogation of some right or obligation created by law, the command of a superior must meet with unhes- itating and instant obedience." So vital to the military system is this subordi- ination of will and action deemed, that it is secured by the moat solemn of human sanctions. Each officer and soldier, before entering the service, swears that he " will observe and obey the orders of the officers appointed over him." Pendergrast lays down the law relating to officers of the army in hia revised edition in the following language: The duty of military obedience to the commands of superior officers is most fully recognized by courts of law ; and it has been held that disobedience never .admits of j ustiiication ; that nothing but the physical impossibility of obeying an order can excuse the non-performance of it j and that when such impossibility is proved, the charge of disobedience falls to the ground. The learning on this sub- ject is to be found in the great case of Sutton vs. Johnstone (first Term Beports, 548), which was an action by Captain Sutton, of His Majesty's ship Isis, against Commodore Johnstone, for arresting and imprisoning him on charges of mis- conduct and disobedience to orders in the action with the French squadron under M. Suffrein, in Ponto Praya Bay, in the year 1782 ; and there the two chief-jus- tices. Lord Mansfield and Lord Loughborough, laid down the law in the follow- ing terms: A subordinate officer must not judge of the danger, propriety, expediency, or 'Consequence of the order he receives; he must obey; nothing can excuse him but a physical impossibility. A forlorn hope is devoted ; many gallant officers have been devoted ; fleets have been saved and victories obtained by ordering particular ships upon desperate services, with almost a certainty of death or