February 7, 1863, The New York Herald
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 1863.
Much feeling is exhibited here in regard to the publication of a pamphlet purporting to be the evidence in full in the Fitz John Porter trial. This is a base and most contemptible swindle, the evidence for the defence, which is threefold more lengthy than that of the prosecution, being entirely mitted. The intention of this is transparent. General Porter, having been deprived of his command, and also of his civil rights, looks now only to public sentiment to vindicate him, after it shall have been enlightened by a thorough perusal of the evidence. The object of this mean and degrading pamphlet is to forestall public opinion in advance of the full publication of the evidence. The evidence in the case will cover twelve hundred closely written pages of foolscap, and the arguments of the counsel for defence, Messrs. Reverdy Johnson and Charles E. Eames, two hundred and twenty-five pages more. The Judge Advocate, Colonel Holt, it will be remembered, declined to detain the members of the court from their duties in the field by replying to the arguments of counsel for the accused. The court thereupon went into secret deliberation upon the evidence, making a verdict at eight o’clock P.M., and transmitting it to the President for approval. In circles here it was almost unanimously agreed that the verdict was favorable to General Porter. His friends and enemies alike agreed that the government had failed to make a case against him. With surprise and much indignation, his friends at last heard of the decision of the court and its approval by the President. The review of the evidence by Judge Holt, which has been paraded so extensively, had nothing to do with the court’s decision, and was made at the instance of the President, to save his Excellency the excessive labor of wading through this immense mass of evidence. Judge Holt’s review appears to have settled the President in his conviction of General Porter’s guilt for the decision was announced shortly afterwards. Surprise is manifested that a review of evidence should be allowed after the court had adjourned, by a government officer, to affect the President’s decision on the verdict of the court. The public demand to know more of the Fitz John Porter trial by a perusal of the evidence on both sides is universal. They cannot readily see why an officer, who has the endorsement of McClellan, Burnside, Morell, Butterfield, Reynolds and Sykes, and others, should be deprived of his commission and civil rights, on the testimony of Generals Pope, Roberts and Colonel Smith, each of whom in their evidence exhibits his personal rancor and animosity to the accused. Let the evidence be forthcoming by a resolution of both houses of Congress.