New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-03-12
REMOVAL OF JUDGES IN MASSA-
CHUskTTS.

The proposed removal OF Ju0ge lsorlog. by sue
legislature and Executive of Massachusetts,, nat
urslly raises the question whether similar pro-
ceedpes ever before took place in that State.
The fact ia that ia the whole history of Massa-
chuset.s there have occurred but i've occasions
upou which the Legislature has inseriered for
tie removal Of a Judge. OF these cases we are
enabled to give the following curious and inter-
estiDg particulars derived principally IRON tue
records of Massachusetts,, as this is subject
upon which very little light is thrown by any
printed book.
Under the first Charter Of Massachusetts, the
duties of Judges were discharged BY the Assist
suts, upon whose continuance in office the free
men of the Colony annually passed; thus having
the power, which they occasionally exercised, Of
dropping such as did not give satisfaction. In
der the second Charter, the Judges were ap-
pointed by the Crown, or by the Governor in tbs
name Of the Crown, aud no sstemp. seems ever
TO have been made for the removal ofany Of them,
until very near the close of the Colonial regime.
IL lie well known that one of the expedients
adopted by the mother country, to strengthen the
hands of the Massachusetts, oficisls during the
struggle on the question of parliamentary tax
alton. was the assumption by the Crown of
the payment of the salaries of the Governor
aud of the Judges Of the Superior Court, for
which hitherto they bad been dependent upon
annual grants of the General Court. The Msssa-
chusetts House of Representatives denounced
this proce due as an attempt. on the part of the
Crown. TO remove the officers of the Province
from their due and proper dependence upon the
people of the Province and they resolved that
any officers of She Colony taking this exterior
pay. ard thus enrolling the mselves 10 service
which was brought illegally and demonstrations
ally to trench upon the chartered rights of Mas
sschasetts, ought to be regarded as her enemies.
Four out of the five Judges yielded to thisappesl,
and declined to touch the money of the Crown, or
to receive any salary except that voted by the
General Court. The fifth Judge, Peter Oliver,
the Chief Justice, who seems to have taken much
the same view Of the supereminent and uoques-
tionable authority Of the Crown that Mr.. L0ring
does of the like authority in Congress, declared
thst az he had accepted and thought himself bound
to accept the money already dderedby the Crown,
so re should not dare refuse any fdtare grants
which the Crown might make to him. Upon re-
ceiyjng this snswer, the House resolved q. once
TO address the Governor and Council for bis re-
moyal, which they did upon the ground tb;t, as
in accepting salary from the Crown, he had
voted "seanst the known sense OF the people
"snd the provinces" she had By such condu,t
IL 30, tha ~ ;tY,fi of
"tbe province; had done what directly tended to
"the peryersion of law and justice; and had be-
"eome justly obnozious TO the good peopt; Of the
"prorincs." When Governor Hutchinson re
fused to bring this address before the C)uncil,
insisting thst il was his right to consult the
Council or not, as he pleased, the House pro-
ceeded to exhibit articles of impeachment against
Oliver, till, finally, after disputstion as to
the power ofre movsl, and the rights, respectively,
Of the Governor and Of the Council, Hutchinson
cut the matter short by dissolying the Court.
Very soon after this he lefs the province, carry
ing with bun that famous address," sgocd, as
he boasts, "by one hundred and twenty OF the
"merchants and principal gentlemen of the town
" of Boston, of very reputable characters, Oft
gentlemen of the Council, with three or four
exceptions only, of the episcopal clergy
an array OF Hutchinsonian "addressers," quite as
formidable in proportion, to cay the least and
every way as respectable, as the remonstrants
agar ct the removal of Judge LOring
Under the State Constitution, four Judges have
been removed: three by address, land, as it hap
pens, the whole three in one year, and one only
by Impeachment. The last case was that Of
Prescott, Judge of Probate for the County of
MddlereX who wss impeached and removed in
lS2l for taking illegal fees. The other three
cases, all Of which occurred in 1903, were those
Of judges Vinal and Sargent, of the Courts Of
Common Pleas and General Sessions of the Peace
fr the County OF Hancock, in Maine, then part
Of Massachusetts; and of TheOphlus Bradbury,
a Judge Of the Supreme Court. The cases Of
VfnAl and Sargent were peculiar, and not with
out strong bearing in some respects, upon the
case of Judge LohDg. Hancock County, it
seems, had been much torn by party disputes, both
State and local and the two Judges, above named,
had rendered themselves very obnoxious to part
of their felloE.citizsns, by an attempt to have
the County seat removed from Castine to some
other place. Vengeance was in consequence
sworn against them, and their conduct was very
narrowly watched. Before long, petition was
presented TO the Legislature, representing that
these Judges had been guilty of extortion; but
the Legislature, after investigation, dismissed
1.-THE complaint. The same charges were presently
laid before the Grand Jury of Hancock County,
and they indicted thetw Judges, who were tried
.rI GonrI nniltr-Ninal nf he rim nhsrnad auI