Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1855-03-13
GBe aalIp Spp.
TUESDAY. MARCH 10, 1855.
The RemovaI OF Judge Lorinx,

be the mode in which the Boston petitions are
filed. If the truth were known, there would
be no doubt that more than half the names
appended to these petitions are obtained in
this dishonorble manner.
The above paragraph is from lea er, which
appeared in the Fitchburg Repeale, of Saturday
last. We notice it because it has been cop
led into all the bunker presses of Bos.
ton and vicinity; and, also, because it is
false and illogical in its assumptions, if it is
not false in its facts. The editor of the Rev-
ellie says that Boston merchant asked him to
sign petition, as a citizen Of Boston for the
removal Of Judge Loring; and he therefore,
has no doubt, sit the truth were known"
that more than half the names appended to
the petitions, .or Judge Loring's removal,
were obtained in this dishonorable manner.
This is very common mode of arguing to
people who are ready to take assumptions for
facts, but it would only bring contempt upon
the person who would employ ii in the dis
cussion of a problem. Where are the Reveal
les facts; where is the evidence of its facts !;
Who is the man WHO made this proposition to
Piper; If Piper is anxious for all the truth
to be told in this matter; and if he wishes the
exposure of any dishonorable means that have
been employed to get up petitions for the re-
moyal of Judge Loring, why does he not name
the Boston merchant who asked him to sign
We do not believe that he dares to do so. 1t
looks, on the face of it, as if in making the
statement he has made, he meant to conceal
the truth, in order that he might seem to have
some pretext for libelling thousands of his Eel.
low citizens, who have petitioned for the re-
moval of Loring. AT any rate Piper places
himself in the position of one, who, having
discovered person in base act, conceals that
persons name, but publicly brands with the
same baseness thousands of men who neither
know the person spoken of-nor the editor of
the Reveille. Out with the name of the Bos-
ton merchant, Mr.. Piper, who, from his
knowledge of you, did not hesitate to make
dishonorable proposition to you, we want to
know the facts of this case. If you do not let
it out, the charge Of dishonor rests upon you.
The editor of the ReceiHe, after having
as dishonorable men, proceeds to say that,
"The strongest argument against the re-
moval of Mr.. Loring is that which Mr. Dana
has so ably presented before the legislative
committee, to whom the subject has been re-
ferred, the danger of establishing precedent
by the removal of a judicial officer, who
should always hold his office independent of
the legislative or executive power, and be
auh iapf an v fo fba Constitution 1pni sc +l,o
real and only voice of the people of state.'
Now, the petitioners ask for the removal of
Loring in the manner prescribed by the con-
stitution SO that the twaddle of the ReretHe
about Judicial officers holding their offices in.
dependent of the legislative or executive pow
ers, subject only to the constitution, is not
worthy of moments notice. This bugaboo
about establishing a precedent is, however,
deserving of some attention.
We do not attach the same superstitious
importance to this question of precedent,
which some men do. 1t is venerable super.
stition, which might as well have been left
on the other side of 1875. The nature of a
precedent, as we look at it, depends entirely
upon the nature of the thing to be done. If
we wish to do thing which is just and right
Of itself, why should we hesitate to do it be.
cause some old, monarchical tradition comes
stalking from the tomb of George the Third
10 prevent US If We do good thing we es-
ablish good precedent-we do what ought,
in the same circumstances. to be done again
but if we do bad thing. we do what never
ought to be done again under any circum-
stances-we do what an enlightened public
will never permit to be done again. The JUS
tice and righteousness of the act to be done,
are the primary objects to be considered
The question of precedent is merely second.
AIRY. We hold that the removal of Judge Lo.
ring would be right in itself, and, consequent
ly, it would be good precedent-a prece-
dent that ought, by all means, to be made
1t ought to be made patent to the world, be.
yond all doubt or question, that no Massa-
chusetts Judge can condemn one of his fellow
citizens to eternal slavery, in the face of Mas
sachusetts law, and, at the same time, hope tc
retain any appointment under the government
of the State. Mr.. Dana did not consider this
question of precedent in relation to the case
before the committee, but in relation to GER
tain possibilities which he imagined might
happen. He did not go into the considera.
ton of the question of the removal of Loring,
as an act demanded by the honor of Massa
ehusetts-by the purity of the Judiciary
by the safety of our citizens, but simply as an
act that might affect the independence of the
judiciary. The weakness of Mr.. Danus ar
gument consisted in the fact, that he ignored
the question between the petitioners and Lo-
ring, and discussed supposable question
between posterity and the whole judicial fra.
ternity.
1t has been stated that Mr.. Loring is mod.
ell man in all the private relations of life, and
nobody, that we are aware Of, has ever de-
MED this. Mr.. Parker, Mr.. Phillips, and the
other gentlemen who appeared for the petit
tisners, have admitted the fact But this APP
pears to us to strengthen the argument fol-
making him an example. If man Of bad
moral reputation had broken the laws Of
Massachusetts and sent Burns into slavery, il
would not have furnished half so strong O
precedent for the respectability of manstealiDg
as it did, being done by such man as Judge