Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-05-03

posed that body were members OF the ruling
party IN the Legislature, we may fairly suppose
that the allpowerful influence of that party was
at work to procure his reiection If the object
had been simply to make Judge Loring feel
that he had incurred the heavy displeasure of
his felloweitizens by disregarding their pecu-
liar opinions in the obedience he had paid to a
law of the United States, this rejection from an
honorable chair in the University would have
been quite enough. lie could not have failed
to see in it that he was at least no fayorite with
the ruling party Of his State. But we do not
doubt that he possessed this knowledge even
before he made the decision which has led to
the question Of his dismissal from the Bench,
and, could that knowledge have had the slight
est effect in changing his decision, he would
richly have deserved not only dismissal from
office, but the contempt of the world.
The next step in the persecution against him
was made in the popular branch of the Legisla-
ture, where an address to the Governor Of the
State was moved requesting him to remove
Judge Loring from the Bench. This address
was carried by a vote of204 to III, the number
of absentees being 81. In the Senate, a body
which was devised to constitute barrier against
the desolating effects of sudden popular excite
ment the address has just been concurred in
by a vote of 20 to ii. Thus have the two
Houses Of the Legislature, by vote of nearly
two to one, agreed in one of the most arbitrary
and dangerous exercises ofpower that can be
| attempted against the peace and good order of
society; and this they have done without as
signing any reason whatever by which the
public might judge of the wisdom or good in
tentions of the act. 1t is true that, in the
House, one of the advocates of the address, in q
labored effort to prove the reasonableness and
propriety Of the measure, said:
"The independence Of the judiciary cannot
be effected by this removal, inasmuch as it will
be done for an act not performed as Judge.
No future Judge Of Probate will fear that, in
consequence of this precedent, any decision of
his, as Probate Judge, and on matter of
probate, will give good ground for his removal
by address"
But the fallacy in this case is too palpable to
need pointing out Judge Loring, indeed, was
not acting in his capacity Of Probate Judge Of
the State, nor on a matter Of probate, but he
was nevertheless acting as a Judge, for and in
behalf of the United States; and the indepen.
dence Of the Judiciary is as much attacked in
his case, acting as Commissioner appointed by
the President of the United States, as if his
decision had been on a matter of probate while
sitting as State Judge. If we permit our
SELVES 10 I6bdIu lIc VI Oluce as
o matter of expediency, to be tempered with
by every popular excitement that may arise in
our midst, we may soon expect to see laws
made for no other purpose but to show how
easily they may be broken. The animosities
Of party will be taken as the dictates of reason,
and qualification" will stalk abroad in its
most odious form and sense. 1t is limited in
one of the Boston papers that the Governor Of
Massachusetts "may have the wisdom and the
6rmness to interpose to prevent the consum-
nation" Butwha hope can we have that the
Chief Magistrate belonging to the ruling party
will dare assume the courage, even had he the
disposition, to plant himself against the over
whelming current of ianaticsm that is now in
undating the ancient Commonwealth of Mas
sachusetts2 There is no hope that he will !;
and we shpdder at the consequences that may
follow this outrage upon the sanctity Of the
Judiciary.