Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 February 1886 — FITZ JOHN PORTER. [ARTICLE]

FITZ JOHN PORTER.

His Bill Passed by the House of Representatives After a Warm Debate. Exciting Scene Between Cutcheon, of Michigan, and Bragg, of Wisconsin. [Asoociated Press report.] The Fitz-John Porter bill was passed by the National House of Representatives on the 18th of February, the vote being: Yeas 171, nays 113. Prior to the voting Meesrs. Phelps (N. J.), Curtin (Pa.), and Warner (O.) spoke in favor of the bill. Mr. Bragg (Wis.) moved the previous question and closed the debate. Mr. Everhart (Pa.) moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to strike out the words “prior to his appointment under this act," so as to make the proviso read : “Said Fitz-John Porter shall receive no pay, compensation, or allowance whatsoever.* Mr. Reea, suggesting that this gave an opportunity for vindicating Porter from any question of money, demanded the yeas and nays. The motion to recommit was" lost on a vote of yeas 112, nays 173. Mr. Bragg then withdrew hie demand for the previous question and again took the floor. In the course of a speech in support of the bill he declared that Mr. • Cutcheon (Mich.), in attempting to show that there had been a general engagement at the second battle of Bull Run on Aug. 29, had ingeniously used a table of the casualties between Aug. 16 and Sept. 2. Mr. Cutcheon declared that he had so stated in his speech. Mr. Bragg—You took a table of figures from a heading that covered almost a month, and you have published it in your speech us evidence of the losses on the 29th, and your Republican constituents who do not read anything but your speech in a Republican newspaper will think that an historical evidence of the war. Mr. Cutcheon declared that the heading of the table showed precisely what it was. Mr. Bragg declined to yield, and Mr. Cutcheon asserted his right to reply, as he had been misquoted. Mr. Bragg (advancing to the bar of the House) —I state what you sold. I state what the figures are. Mr. Cutcheon (also advancing into the space in front of tho Speaker’s desk)—Now you are trying to rum a falselu o;l down the throat of this House. [Applause on the Republican side ] Mr. Bragg—l draw my own inference ns to your purposes, and (defiantly) will repeat them if you desire. [Applause on the Democratic side.] At this time there was a good deal of confusion and excitement in the House, and it was with difficulty that the voice of either could be hoard; but as the speaker rapped the House to order and stated to Mr. Cutcheon that he must not interrupt Mr. Bragg without permission, the former indignantly exclaimed : “Then the gentleman must not falsify facts.” “Ah," was Mr. Bragg’s retort, “I am glad I have driven that radical from under Stanton’s petticoats so that he has come to the front. ’’ Mr. Bragg,continuing, said: “Would to God there was more freedom of conscience allowed in the Republican party, then Porter would have vastly more votes. But as there is a Presidential candidate in training for the ‘ grand old party ’ who is to run on the Fitz-John Porter issue, it will not do for more Republicans to come over, because the Black Eagle of the West might not like it.” [Applause and laughter on the Democratic side ana groans from the Republican side,] Mr. Bragg said he was glad to hear the groans, because it showed there was a little life left in the Republicans. Groans did not proceed from a strong body in a happy and contended frame of mind, but from one suffering from cramp in the bowels, He again demanded the previous question. Mr. Cutcheon rose to a question of personal privilege, and was granted permission bv the Speaker to explain away the charge mode by Mr. Bragg. As Mr. Cutcheon was about to explain, Mr. Bragg interrupted, and was called to order by the Republicans. Mr. Bragg shouted, defiantly: "I will give you cause for a personal explanation if you let me speak. The gentleman stated that Fitz-John Porter was lying two and a half miles from the head of his corps, but there is no evidence of that. I will give him cause for a personal explanation if you wont it.”