New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-21

Ia. first been Established to the satisfaction q
the tribunals of Massachusetts that such person
is a person bound to service under the laws OF
some other State. or fugitive from such service,
and claimed BY the person to whom such service
is due. These points must first be established
before the Fugitive clause Of the Federal Consti-
tuition can begin to operate.
These three points having been established by
due process of law, Massachusetts, is then pre-
pared TO allow the taking away of such fugitive
-and hot till then but even then she positively
forbids any officers of hers, judicial or other,
from having anything 10 do with the arrest or
surrender under the Acts Of Congress of 1898
snd 1850 Of any person claimed as fugitive
slave Though ready to give TO the Fugitive
clause Of the Federal Constitution all the legal
effect which fairly belongs to it, Massachusetts,
regards those enactments Of Congress on this
subject not only as tyrannicsl and atrocious-
recklessly exposing free citizens TO the risk Of
being kidnapped-but also as usurpations on the
Part of Congress gross inyasons of States rights,
unwarrsnted ard unconstitutional interferences
in a business with which Congress has nothing
70 do.
Regarding this Massachusetts, bill as a marked
specimen of legislation which will soon be imi-
tated BY every free State in the Union, we are
anxious that nothing Mould defeat its passage.
Gov Gardner is no doubt on the watch for some
pretense to veto it, and a section introduced
into it since his refusal 70 remove Judge Loring,
and designed to meet that case, may afford him
a much more plausible constitutional objection
to this bill than any be was able to find, even
with the aid of falsifcatiOns of history to Judge
LorIgs removal. This new section provides
that if State Judge shall hold for ten DAYS after
tie passage of the act any Office under the Uni
ted States which may require him to act under
the Fugitive statutes of 1923 and 1850, such
holding shall be regarded as msdemesnor, JUS
tifying bis impeachment or his removal by ad-
dress.
But the Legislature Of Massachusetts, cannot
amend or alter the Massachusetts, Constitution
and that Constitution limits impeachment of
cases of misbehariorn Office fact of which not
only Gov. Gardner, but the members of the
Legislature also seem in general to be ignorant
Nor can the Legislature add anything to the
constitutional provision as to removal by address
The Governor, in spite of any legislation, will
still retain his unlimited right of passing on any
case submitted to him, aud of deciding whether
OF not it affords ground for removal. All the
Legislature can do is to forbid Judges to hold
offices upon which the acts of 1893 and 1850 i'm
pose the duty of participating in the surrender
of persons claimed as fugitiTos from labor
They may make this as highly penal as they
please, and may thus lay the foundation for an
address; but whatever they may enact so long as
Mr. Gardner is Governor, it will depend upon his
pleasure and his somewhat peculiar system of
constitutional Interpretation whether or not
Judge Lorng shall be removed. 1t would be
much better to have that parsonage in office,
than in attempting to drive Mr.. Gardner into
the fulilment of his forgotten pledges-to en-
danger the Personal Liberty bill.