Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1858-03-12

third reading.
Various reports of inexpedient to legislate.
were accepted; among others, on the order of
inquiry relative to the violation of its charter
by the Metropolitan Railrovd Company, and
on the order of inquiry relative to amending
the charter of the same company.
The police justice bill was debated at length
and passed.
HOUSE.
An order was adopted, providing for two
daily sessions of the Legislature, the forenoon
session to commence at ten A. M, and the
afternoon at two P. NJ. On Mondays the
forenoon session is to commence at twelve.
An order of Mr.. Woodbury. of Sutton, that
a special committee of five be appointed, to
inquire if any member of the House has VIC
lated any law of the Commonwealth in re-
gard to the sale of intoxicating liquors, was
rejeeted--yeas rs, nays 70.
The order of Mr.. Woodbury., in regard to
the analyzGtion of liquors sold by the State
Agent, was adopted.
The Judge Loring matter was then taken
up. Elk Governor Morton of Taunton, said
that though Judge Loring might have been
guilty of some things which all could not ap-
prove, yet no one complained of him because
he had neglected his duty as Judge of Pro-
bate. In the course of his remarks, Gov.
Morton expressed the opinion that the per-
sonal liberty act was constitutional. He adj
mitted that the right to dscplace Judge Lor-
ing, as proposed, could not be questioned
He said:
at is alleged that the Judge violated the
express will of Massachusetts as declared in
the statute OF 1866. Now, there is no doubt
that the Judge believed the law to be inoper
alive, because of its unconstitutionaiity.
There can be no doubt that he went to work
in plain violation of its provisions. The law
of 1855 l conceive to be constitutional, and in
exact accordance with all former iurispru-
dence of the country. Even if it were un.
constitutional and void, as judicial officer of
the Commonwealth, Judge Loring should
| have paid more respect to solemn enactment
of the State. have no desire to palliate the
offence thus committed, but in view of the
fact that the removal is not called for by the
| people of the State, that no objection is urged
against Loring for moral or mental de6cien-
eies, do the admitted commissions Justify The
| address. Judge Lorlng's course in regard to
this law resulted in part out of party prelu-
| dice. He was man of undoubted purity of
character, and before resorting to the extreme
measure of removal, he thought every mem
| Der should ask his conscience whether an err
ror Of opinion should be so severely punished.
| Mr.. Morton's remarks we've heard with great
attention by the House, and his opinion that
the law of % was constitutional in all re-
speets, created noticeable sensation, from
the legal reputation of the speaker"
Mr. Hale made personal explanation in
regard to the treatment of Anthony Burns by
Commissioner Loring.
Mr. Pitman of New Bedford delivered an
able speech for the displacement Of Judge
Loring.
Mr. Headley of Lawrence, also opposed the
adoption Of the address.
AT one o'clock the question was taken upon
the adoption of the address, when 1877 voted
in the affirmative and lOl in the negative.
OF the Suffolk delegation, John A. Andrew,
John Bent, George p. Clapp, Amos a. Dun
nels VIM. b. Spooner, George f. Williams,
and Abraham g. Wyman, voted in the af-
frmative.