The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1856-05-02
The Boston Advertiser on the Removal
Of Judge Davis. y

The sold Boston Daily" has q strong
editorial upon the removal Of Judge Davis,
which, from itself and the source from which
It emenates, is entitled to more than ordina-
ry attention. 1t begins rs follows:
"INpErESpEycr OF TIE JUDICIARY. The
recent attack upon Judge Davis Of the Su-
preme Court Of Maine, resulting in his re-
moyal by the Governor on the llth instant,
seems TO deserve somewhat more than ordi-
nary notice. OF the circumstances Of the
case, the original cause Of the conflict with
the executive, the charges made against the
Judge, the hearing (if we may dignity such
a proceeding by that appellation) and the
massage of the address for his removal, our
readers are probably too well informed to
REQUIRE q recapitulation Of the history ut
this time. But there are some phases of
the matter which are, in our opinion, of the
greatest importance, and the manner in
Which the power Of removal by address has
now been exercised, and the partizan char
acter of the whole proceeding, are such as
not only to undermine the independence Of
the judiciary in Maine, but to exert banc-
full influence even beyond the borders Of the
State"
In connection with an extract from Mr..
Paine's argument, the Advertiser says:
Mr.. webster's remark, upon the relation
between the judiciary and the legislature, is
also applicable to questions between the judi
ciary and the executive. The Judge is
hound by his oath TO decide according to
law. The Constitution is the supreme law.
Any act of the legislature, therefore, incon.
sistent with that supreme law must yield to
1t and any Judge, seeing this inconsistency,
and vet giving effect to the law, would yio-
late both his duty and his oath.'"
After giving an abstract of the proceed
ings on the "hearing," with which our
readers are familiar, the Advertiser closes
in the following earnest and emphatic
terms
ave believe that the proceedings which
we have here described are such as no can
did person. unbiased by party feeling, will
attempt to defend. They evince determi-
nation to secure the removal of the Judge,
a nervous dread Of his escape, which closed
the eyes of the leaders in the movement to
all considerations Of propriety or Justice
The nefarious measures taken in our legis-
lature to secure the removal Of Judge LO-
ring, though conducted with less formality,
,rere respectable in comparison, IL We consid-
er the opportunities allowed for refutation
of the charges and for argument. And the
want of fairnesssand decorum in the Maine
legislature is still more deplorable, because
the question was one which assumed, in a
measure, personal character between the
Governor who was to remove and the judge
to be removed. II was direct conflict be
tween the executive and judiciary and II
was, therefore, the duty, and should have
been the pride, Of the third department Of
goyernment-the lcgislature-to interpose
It's shield for the protection of the weaker
party, and grant him fair and candid
hearing.
Such, however, was not the opinion Of
the leaders of the Maine Legislature. The
respondent found in the body who heard his
defence, his accuser and his judges united.
The Legislature, which should have protect
ed him, Joined in the attack with the execu-
tive, and the independence Of the judiciary
IN Maine received the seyerest blow which
could be dealt by party malice and personal
hatred"