New-York daily tribune., 1858-03-24


cent removal Of Judge Loring BY the Governor and
GeIeral Court of Massachus stts from his office Of
Judge of Probate for Suffolk County as an attack
upon the indt peDdence of the Judiciary, The ~ l.
Timts The Washington Union and the other dssat-
isfed prints would do well to see in it-what it
really is-a fresh indication of the unextpguishable
disgust of the people of Massachusetts, with the
Fugitive Slave law, and especially with the miser-
able spirit of doughface subseryiency which led
Jut ge LoriDg to consent to act as one of its exc
cutoners. In this point of view, his removal ought
to appear especially at this particular crisis as an
extremely seasonable warning; and there are at this
moment several persons at Washington from North
ern States to whose cases it is particularly well
suited and upon whom we hope it will not be lost.
To attempt to convert Judge LOring into poltl-
cal martyr is totally to misunderstood or to misreP-
reseDt the whole circumstances and history OF his
case. He is Il martyr to save-catching-
more. Instead of appealing to the public to bestow
upon him tie praSe-which, having lost his Office
of Judge of Probate, he might regard as rather
empty-of magistrate who prefers to lose his
State Office rather than to disregard the law, it
would be more to the purpose to urge his claims to
the usual reward and consolation of doughfaces-a
good fat Federal berth. In some such berth we have
very little doubt that he will presently find balm
and consolation for his wounded sensibilities, and
ample indemnity for ali his pecuniary sacrifices.
IrnouestioI ably il was the connection Of Judge
Loring with the matter of the rendition of Burns
under the Fugitive Slave law, that led to the loss
on his part some time since, of the Office of Law
Professor at Cambridge, and now of the office of
Judge of Probate. But it is absurd to attempt to
represent one of these acts any more than the other
as an attack upon the independence Of the judicia
ry. The rendition of Burns was not judicial act
at least, those who hold the Fugitive Slave law
to be constitutional have no right to attempt to in
vest i with that character since il is only on the
ground that the action of Commissioner under
that law is not Judicial that the consttutonalty of
the act itself can be maintained. If the rendition
of an alleged fugitive from labor were judicial
act then it could only be performed by Judge ap-
pointed with the consent of the Senate, commits.
stoned by the President, and having fixed salary,
instead of being paid by the job. But-so the
Judges of the Supreme Court tell us-the rendition
of fugitive is not Judicial, it is merely min.
isteral act. The Commissioner does not decide
the alleged fugitive to be slave, or even q fugi-
tive; he only Identifies him and sends him off TO
Alabama or Virginia, as the case may be, leaving
all these judicial questions opeD to be settled by
the tribunals there. 1t was not, then, by acting
in apy judicial function that Judge Lorng made
him.ef obpo1ious to the people Of Massachusetts,,
but by setting 10 non, judicial and merely minis
terisl function. 1t was not TO his conduct as a
Judge or as Law Professor that they objected;
it va, simply that, not cO1tent with being Judge
sLd being Law Professor, he must persist in tax.
ipg upon himself the additional, and, as it was
thought in Massachusetts,, the incompatible busi-
ne.s of q sayecatcher. For il 10 TO be noted that
bis decision in the case of Burns-though many
thought that decision wholly unsustaned by the
facts in eyidence-did not constitute the main
ground of the complaint against him. Had that
decision been the other way-hsd he discharged
Burns instead of delivering him up-stI the mere
fact that. being Judge of Massachusetts Court,
he had consented to disgrace that Office by joining
with il tie function Of slave-catchng Commits
siouer would have been held quite sufficient to war
rsnt his removal.
The resolute and perseverirg spirit with which
that removal has been followed up, can only be
taken a. An unmistakable indication of the an.
tipatby of the people of Massachusetts to slave
catching, ard an empahtic expression of their
opinion that il is net fit business for Law Profes-
scrs and State Judges to be employed in. Mr..
Lor;og thinks it is He WAS warned three years ago
By az act Of the Legislature, that if he persisted n
defiance Of the feelings and wishes of the people of
the State, in holding his Office OF slave-cst,hins
Comm ssinner be must eIlect 70 be removed frOm