Newspaper. Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, p.254-268.

Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper Entered according to active Congress, in the year 1889, by the judge publishing company, in the office of the Library of Congress at Washington, – entered at the post-office, New York, N.Y., as second-class matter. No. 1757.—Vol., LXVIII.] New York – for the week ending May 18, 1889. [Price, 10 cents. $4.00 yearly. 12 weeks, $1.00.

Admiral Porter Under Fire. It is too bad that this centennial season of rejoicing should be marked by the discussion of a question involving the valor of an exalted officer of the Navy and the honor of an officer prominent in the federal army during the rebellion. The Butler – Porter controversy grew out of the charge by General Butler that Admiral Porter withdrew, with his mortar-boats, from the battle of New Orleans because he was in fear of a floating dock, which he mistook for a mysterious Rebel ram. Admiral Porter brings documents to prove that the charges are baseless, and General Butler says he will meet them with equally convincing documentary-proofs on his side. Careful reading of all the statements in the case indicates that the charges are based, and in part at least, on a misconception of facts. The accusation against captain- now Admiral- Porter was publicly made by General Butler in a speech at a Boston banquet, and it is alleged that copies of the speech were in type in the Boston newspaper-offices for days before it was delivered. This shows that the charge was made with deliberation, and not while the maker was laboring, as had been charged, under the stimulation of too much wine. This is not the first time that General Butler and Admiral Porter have been at loggerheads; but the present controversy might not have arisen had not Admiral Porter, in a recent publication, taken a large share of the credit for the original plan for the capture of New Orleans to himself and his forces. This statement was promptly criticized, and the criticism no doubt fell under the eye of General Butler, who only awaited an opportunity to open upon his old antagonist. Witnesses from all parts of the country are hastening to the newspapers-offices with their recollections of the capture of New Orleans, and it is not surprising, considering the length of time that has elapsed, that discrepancies and contradictions are found in the different statements. Thus far Admiral Porter has the better of the argument, inasmuch as he presents official documents from the Navy Department, including a letter from Gideon Welles, when the latter was secretary of the Navy, in 1862, which support the statement of Admiral Porter, and give to him due credit for his assistance rendered in the movement against New Orleans. One of the strongest indorsements that Admiral Porter has, however, is found in a letter which he received from Farragut, after the latter had passed the forts, detailing his experiences during the passage, with some of the events that immediately followed. In this letter he says: “If the General (Butler) will come up to the Bayou and land a few men, or as many as he pleases, he will find two of our gunboats there to protect him from the gunboats that are at the fort. I wish to get to the English turn, where they have not placed a battery yet; but they have two above, nearer New Orleans. They will not be idle; neither will I. You supported us most nobly. “The publication of these documents has not diverted General Butler. He says that not only did Porter hasten away from the scene of the action, but that he also warned his (Butler’s) troops to get away as far as possible. He refers to Parton‘s history, in which it is recited “that Captain Porter‘s fleet of steamers were coming rapidly down the river, propelled by the report that the celebrated ram Manassas was after them. “General Butler says that this statement by Parton has been admitted by Porter, who explained it by saying that he was towing his mortar-vessels down for a supply of shells, which General Butler says was unnecessary, or on this occasion there were four or five steamers below Porter which were ready to supply all of the shells needed. It is a singular fact that an officer of the same name, serving in the Navy should’ve created a sensation second only to that which General Fitz John Porter‘s case excited.