Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-05-17
Case of Judge Loring.

alleged tnat he Is rendered uuul LOT Inc pcI-
Torrance of the duties o: his Office by insan-
ity, physical incapacity, or any other vista
ton of Providence. This case, then, is the
first during three quarters of century where
it has been proposed TO use this alleged con-
sttutional power. This is to be precedent
by which our judicial officers are TO be placed
III the same category with postmasters under
the general, and sheriffs under the State gov
eminent, to be removed with every change
OF the ruling party. Judge Story said, in
the Convention of 1920, speaking of the very
2 usage under consideration, ''the first in
stance of removal would establish a practice
which would never be departed from, of shift
ing the whole court with every change Of the
purity in power" That which degrades mo
dern politics, which most couupts public
morals, and prevents the best men from con-
senting to take offices of emolument, Is the
custom, that long and constant precedents
hardly palliate, but which has now become
almost necessity, the removal of honest and
faithful public officers to make room for the
friends and supporters of the victorious par
ty. There is no official action that SO dis.
gusts a high-minded man, as this now neces-
slry practice of removal. would not be Inc
first to introduce it even in respect to the
most unimportant offices. When, then, | am
solicited to perform an act, which may be
construed as inaugurating this custom, for a
precedent during all time, as regards the ju-
dietary, that body concerning whom the Bill
of Rights declares "that it is essential to the
rights of every individual, his life, liberty,
property, and character, that there be an inn
partial Interpretation of laws and adminisira-
ton of Justice" and that at is the right of
every citizen to be tried by judges free,
impartial, and independent as the lot of hui
manity will admit is it strange that | recoil
from the task with distrust and alarm?
The next reason why hesitate to remove
Judge Loring assuming the power so to do to
be clear and positive, is that no crime is al
legged against him, i'll Office, or out, and no
intimation is given that he has not satisfactorily
and faithfully performed his duties as Judge of
Probate. The 18th article Of the Bill of Rights
declares that mo subject shall be held 10 an
swer for any crimes or offense until the same
Is fully and plainly substantiated, and for
mally described to him" In the case of adj
dress, the Legislature act rs public prosecu-
tor, or grand jury, to frame the indictment,
and an indictment without an allegation Of
crime would be quashed at once by the court.
The Executive acts as the Court in this case,
and certainly should not condemn without
some specification of criminality.
But it is alleged there was that in the case
of Judge Loring, which, without being an
overt crime, renders him so obnoxious and
Objectionable as to make his removal desir-
able Still, that removal should take place
in a way unquestionably constitutional; in
such a manner that while the obnoxious in
.rt1 L Ia
precedent is established pregnant with evil to
those who may come after him, and so that
punishment shall follow only a plain violation
of law
Such course is open for the Legislature to
adopt. In both branches an attempt was
made to render the holding of the office of
Judge of Probate incompatible with that of
the commissionership under which Judge
Loring's action was deemed obnoxious and
Objectionable.
To the allegation that Judge Loring has
shocked the popular sentiment of Massachu-
sets, it may be pertinent TO ask what the duty
of judges is. Are they to expound the laws
as made by the lawmaking power, or are
they to construc them in accordance with
popular sentiment? When the time arrives
that Judge SO violates his oath of Office, as
to shape his decisions according to the fluctu-
ations of popular feeling, we become gov
eminent not of laws, but of men
Surprising, as is alleged, that according to
the ordinary balancing of conflicting testimo-
ny, the decision of Judge Loring was erro-
neous, no one asserts or believes that he will
fully adjudicatcd wrongly anil corruptly.-
The error, if error it be considered, was a
mistake. Is a judge, then, 10 be removed
from Office, even if in the execution of that
office he gives mistaken Judgement Such
an Impractical and dangerous policy woald
lead to a daily removal among judicial off,
GERS Of our inferior courts, SO often are their
decisions overuled by higher tribunals.
As to the allegation that the conduct of
Judge Loring in this trial was harsh, unfeel-
ing, and not characterized by the humanity
which the maxims of our jurisprudence throw
around prisoner, and that he lid not give
him the benefit of the doubt which the theo-
nv of our law, as old as the law itself, grants
every person arraigned, there is conflicting
testimony The senior council for Burns
perhaps as impartial witness as the nature
of the case permits. testifies that he wrote in
his private journal during the trial. "The con-
duct of Judge Loring has been conslderate
and humane" and his present statement con-
firms his contemporaneous declaration. In
such a conflict of testimony, let us grant
Judge Loring the benefit of that doubt, which
he is accused of having withheld from the
individual arraigned before his tribunal, lest
we ourselves do violence to the same great
and sacred principle which it is alleged he
lost sight of in the exercise of his judicial
functions.
As to the objection that judge Loring did
not act mp to the convictions OF the people OF
Massachusetts concerning the constitutional
itv of the law he was led to enforce, regard
must lie had TO the constitution of the human
mind. and the historical succession and posi-
ton of events touching this enactment
Bearing in mind that the law of 1898 was
repealed by implication by the act OF 1850,
that accordingly the Massachusetts, statute OF
lS43 became imperative, that repeated at
tempts to re-enact ii bad failed in successive
legislatures, that the highest judicial tribunal,
national and State and the large majority OF
iurists and statesmen of the Republic had pro-
nounced the act constitutional, that great
poiitical revolution had but just swept the
country, openly acknowledging it as finaliiy,
that from commercial and other influences
the country in which he exercised his judicial
functions, and the people with whom he
came i'm more immediate contact were imbued
with similar views, that the influences of the
profession to which he was educated, and to
which he had devoted the greater part of the
ordinary life of man, naturally ana universal
" develope regard and even reverence for
existing laws and established institutions;
bearing in mind also that in the fervid excite
ment and unfolding of American ideas, the
changes of popular sentiment, that with such
facilaty and rapidity embody themselves
in statutes and laws through the machinery
of our elective bodies of Legislation, must and
do frequently outrun the convictions of our
citizens, it would seem to be going too far to
hold in all cases the human mind answerable
whenever il fails to come up to the impress
/ ions and sentiments Of the lay