Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1858-03-18
sTER DAILY PYm~THURsDAY, MARCH Is

upon the Address for thc removal OF
Judge LoFTng.
Mr.. Speaker I oppose the motion OF the
gentlemen from Newburyport (Mr Cushing)
to recommit the address. with directions TO
inquire into the expedieucy of impeachment,
as II any cause therefor exists. 1t implies
either that the facts alleged in the report, il
true constitute proper ground of imPeaeh
ment, or else that the before the house is
one to which the method Of removal by id
dress ought never to be applied. Neither of
these propositions can be rue. 1t is CONNIE
tent Tor the government to remove a Judge
rom olhee under circumstances which would
neither require, nor Justify impeachment.
II 1t was intended that impeachment should
always &c resorted to as the remedy of the
people, then the provision for possible reno
val oy address would have had no place, and
could nave no proper place in the Consttu-
'loh' Inc hTst proposition which the motion
| seems TO imply, then, cannot be true.
| secondly. As to the implication that this
SS case to which the remedy proposed, viz,
| removal by address, ought never to be ap-
pied, Why. Mr.. Speaker, if the arguments
already addressed to US are correct, then re-
moval by impeachment would be impossible
although the facts were hagrantly correct
and true as charged. The facts are truly
STATED, and maintain that the preservation
oil the rights, the "honor," Quoting the
very word so frequently iterated and reiter-
ated by the distinguished gentlemen from
Ne"ooryport,) that the rights, the g." honor"
the future safety, the proper administration
of the laws of the people Of Massaebusetts
require the application CT this immediate.
this precise remedy of removal of a judicial
officer by address.
The complaint, Mr.. Speaker, made against
Judge Loring is not for misfeasance or NAL
1easance In the administration of Justice, in
the performance of the functions OF the Office
OF Judge OF Probate. If there is ANYTHING
objectionable urged against the judge IN his
capacity OF Judge oil Probate of wills in the
County of Suffolk, it is simply incidental to
the main allegation, the main charge uDon
Whleh THIS mighty petition OF the people rests.
he objection made Is that the people of
Massachusetts judge it to be Inconvenience and
unsafe that man holding IL iudicialoffice call
ed upon to perform the most delicate judicial
functions as judge of the Commonwealth of
massachusetts, acting under her laws, should
also occupy an office which implies the per
torrance OF duties, and calls for the exercise
Oh functions, Imperative on him, in The
opinion OF Judge Loring, (which not only
come into conflict with the great heart. the
S-~NS PNb4AS SOhl4ihSubs buG conscience. and
the Judgment of the mass of all Massachus.
etts, but also in conflict with their lawful will,
leglseuvely expressed. And l, sir, speaking
for my own humble self declaring the iudg-
ment OF my own mind; speaking under all
the responsibility that attaches to me as the
representative OF constituency of this Com
monwealth; dischargng myself of all per.
sonal feeling or political prejudice Gas l sin
cereiy trust and believe); l find it to be my
outy,- wlthstanding the delicate rela-
uohs winch hold, as member of tie SUIT
lolk par TO that gentleman, overcoming all the
ieellng, which might natural overshadow my
Judgment and which, apprehend, l can
not prevent, for a single moment depressing
me, and acting directly in conflict with the
| opinions, prejudices, and desires of personal
friends and professional associates. whom |
woaId not willingly wound, find it to be nv
duty after long reflection to declare that [ be-
heve there is no way Of escape, consistently
either with our rights, interests, or our
honor,) from the application of this precise
lemedy-the removal 5y address, l say that
there is no alternative. The Judge of Pro-
bate for the County OF Suffolk plants himself
upon his own private Interpretation of the law
of 1856, upon his own private judgment, and
what he deems to be his right and duty.
take issue with him; l say-the majority
OF the people OF this Common W ealth declared
their will in the late State gubernatorial cleo
ton. Into the discussion. incident to that
election was thrown, by their opponents. this
| very question of the removal OF Judge Lor-
ing, and the people expressed themselves of
the opinion that this remedy ought to be re-
resorted to, pursued, and applied.
There. is no way Of escape, consistently
| with the preservation of our rights, and our
honor. The position of Judge OF Probate I'M
| der the laws Of the Commonwealth, is incom-
| patible with the performance of any such
function as that required of the Fugitive
Slave Commissioner. L say that the Act of
Congress of 1850 presents an entirely different
case from that presented by the old Rendition
Act OF 1898, under which statute our own
act OF 1S43 was passed. 1t was competent
under that statute for State magistrates to act
but 1t presented an entirely different case,
wholly different case. And yet, Mr.. Speaker,
L ask gentlemen on the floor of this House to
remember that the Legislature of Massachu-
setts forbade, by special legislation, the per-
Torrance of any function under the Fugitive
Slave Act of SO, on the part of any magis-
trate or officer, whether judicial, executive, or
ministerial, created by the laws of the Com
monwealth. And yet, Mr.. Speaker, l saw
that the case presented by the Act of 80 is a
little different from that presented by the Act
of 80. Andl will tell you why. 1t exhibits
an lncompatlbllity, staring, glaring, and fla
grant; presenting, as it seems To me, no
ground OF argument no question or doubt
Under the Act OF 1898 magistrate assuming
to issue writ for the purpose of taking into
custody an individual alleged to be a fugitive
from bondage or service in another State-be.
ing an officer or magistrate of Massachusetts.
would be under the direct supervision OF the
Supreme Judicial tribunal and habeas corr
pus, personal replevin, or whatever judicial
process might be best adapted to the burmese
Of securing his rights, to person claiming to
be freeman-in the actual possession of his
liberty, claiming title to himself up to the
moment Of his arrest-woud be entirely
competent, would be entirely easy, would be
entirely adapted to the preservation of his le-
gal rights, and would protect him in his lib
critics.
But, mark you, Mr.. Speaker the attitude
in which we stand to the law of 1850. I'm.
der the act of 1850, we have a State magis.
trate, in the person of Judge Lorng, vested
with all the powers of United States Com.
missioner, for the purpose of the recapture of
persons claimed TO be fugitive slaves. And
he issues process in his capacity OF United
States Commissioner in favor of claimant.
The United States Marshal surrounds him
with his posse comitata8, surrounds himself
with hundred men, clad in mail, sabre in
hand, pistol in pocket, sword drawn, bayonet
! fixed. The United States Marshal draws
men from the navy yard and from the fort in
our harbor, and no State process can touch
the man in his custody. Thus it is held.
| From the moment of seizure 1yithon+ andan