Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1854-10-11

Gov. WAsHBURN. The conduct of this
functionary in reference to the Burns affair,
having become the subject of comment on one
side and the other, we copy the following ar
ticle from the Independent, which has general
ly been published in the wing papers, and APP
pend a reply to it from the Boston Telegraph.
From the New York independently
Last June, i'll commenting on the outrages
in Boston against personal freedom, we quoted
from the New York Tribune an article respect
ing the disregard of State laws by the citizens
and the Governor of Massachusetts, in which
was the following passage, in reference to the
writ of replevin said to nave been issued bv
the chief Justice OF that State. The issuing of
that writ was supposed to have been known
by the Governor, and our own remarks were
based on that superstition. The editor of the
Tribune spoke Of his conduct as follows:
"He stood by and saw the State authority
defed and trampled under foot, when the
United States authorities resisted the service
of the writ of personal replevin, which would
have taken Burns out of the hands of the fed
eral authorities, and, as we understand the
Massachusetts laws, would have brought the
case before jury. Here was a point where
something could have been done i'll behalf of
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. ne VIII Ol personal re-
plevin should have been served, if it had taken
fifty thousand men to serve it. They would
have been forthcoming if they had been want,
ed. But it would have taken no armed men,
but only little resolution on the part of the
Governor, to have vindicated the majesty of
State law. But Governor Washburn disre-
garded the palpable duties Of his exalted sta
ton, suffered himself to be intimidated, and
the State to be Inundated by a patry band of
armed mercenaries of the FEDERAL power, and
pusillanimously submitted to see the dignity
and honor Of the Commonwealth trod into the
dirt"
In this statnmeut, great, though, we be-
lieve unintentional injustice, was committed
against the Governor for in fact, as we have
since learned, he k1aeao nothing at all Of the
said tor1 Of repIeoia being issued, and neoer
heard of it. Of course he could do nothing
for its execution. We have recently seen
declaration by him, that he himself never saw
the facts eve suppose in reference to the writ
being issued and disregardedO stated in any
newspaper published in Massachusetts, except
as copied from the New York Tribune or our
article in the Independent; that we have been
entirely mistaken in the facts that he did
nothing to aid in the arrest or removal of
Burns-not an order was given, not an en-
couraging word said by him in aid of the mea-
sure ; that, ON the other hand, nothing was
omitted on his part which he could lawfully
do to relieve or rescue him. eff a writ of re-
pleUin," the Governor has declared, "or any
other aorit aoaS issued for the purpose, Meier
sac it, or kt,ep of ats e5iStence." No officer
ever called on me to aid in the service of such
a writ, or told me he had such an one. Some
of the friends of the slave came and conferred
with me as to the feasibility Of taking him
from the custody of the United States officers
by means Of legal process. We examined
the matter; one of them was lawyer in high
repute ill his profession; and | believe we
were all satisfied that nothing could be done
i'll that way, and clearly that l could do moth
ing officially myself. l felt as deeply as you
or anybody else could upon the subject, but
had no more power than you or any other
man. to interpose to prevent the execution of
the United States process.
The fact that Gov. Washburn never heard
or knew of the alleged writ OF replevin, shows
outrageous injustice in the charge against
him, of having in that respect suffered the
State laws to be trampled on, when it was his
first duty to have executed them. AS We
were deceived by the statement, and copied
the charge, we rejoice to publish its refuta-
ton, ana would gladly do all i'll our power to
correct the mistake.
But we have never seen it denied that the
writ of replevin aoes issued; issued, as we
have Eheard stated, by the late Chief Justice
Wells. AS we cannot account for the mys-
terry that such a writ could be issued in a case
so critical and important, and yet that it
should be so concealed or smothered, that
neither the Governor nor the lawyers should
know anything about it till it was all over
Some light is needed on this mystery. Per-
haps Justice Wells never issued any writ at
ALL