procure a conviction of a Judge by a strained construction of

a statute.

The passage of this law, and of other similar laws, I believe, in other States, was one of the excuses for the passage of the law of 1850. The South said, if Massachusetts refuses us the use of her State machinery, we will provide that of the federal government. They did so. The act of 1850 was passed. When this law passed, all the U. S. Commissioners in this State were also State Magistrates, and one was a State Judge. Mr. Sumner, who was a Justice of the Peace as well as a Commissioner, offered to issue his warrant and sit as Commissioner in any case they would bring to him. I believe he gave written notice to that effect to Mr. Marshal Devens. Mr. Curtis did act, in two cases, but no lawyer as I am aware, contended that he had violated the law of 1843. At the very first session of the Legislature after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law, an attempt was made to extend the law of 1843 to the law of 1850. The first section of Mr. Buckingham's bill (Sen. Doc. 51) so provides. The bill was lost in the Senate, by a vote of 13 to 16. The entire bill for the "further protection of personal liberty" was lost. The same year, in the House of Representatives, resolutions condemnatory of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, (House Doc. 187) very moderate in their character, were lost by a vote of 164 to 167. This was in the Coalition Legislature. The same year, during the session of the Legislature, under its very eye, occurred the rendition of Sims. The Court House was in chains. The judges went under them. The Sheriff refused to serve your precepts. Massachusetts law was suspended. Your Courts were closed to all, except such as the United States Marshal chose to admit. Massachusetts lay at the foot of the slave power. What did the Legislature do? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Your Committee examined the parties and reported the facts. They complained that Mr. Hallett and Mr. Tukey insulted them, but said that the others were very polite. The Report was allowed to go by, and Massachusetts did nothing. The popular elections, even, did not indicate that Massachusetts was in earnest in condemning the Fugitive Slave Law.

In 1852, Mr. Sewall introduced his bill "further to protect personal liberty." (Sen. Doc. 76.) It passed the Senate by a vote of 18 to 16; but it was lost in the House, by a vote of 158 to 167, and its death-blow was given to it on the motion of Mr. Henry J. Gardner, of Boston. Now you propose to address the same Mr. Gardner, in his capacity as Gov

ernor, and ask him to remove Judge Loring from office, because he has flown in the face of the legislation of Massachusetts! In the same year, resolutions carefully drawn and moderate in their character, generally attributed to Mr. Hoar of Worcester, intended to commit Massachusetts against the Fugitive Slave Law, were defeated by a vote of 178 to 162. In 1853, Massachusetts elected Mr. Everett to the Senate of the United States, a man thoroughly committed to the support of the Fugitive Slave Law. And now, in 1855, this very Committee is reporting a bill, the first section of which proposes to extend the act of 1843 to the law of 1850, to do what Massachusetts has refused to do up to this time.

Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I put it to you, as men of candor, I put it to every petitioner in this hall,-has the Legislature of Massachusetts done anything to condemn the Fugitive Slave Law, since its passage? Has she not rather refused to do so? Do you forget the condition of the two great parties of this country, from 1850 to 1854? Do you forget the proscriptive resolutions, the erection of that law into a constitutional compact, by both the parties? Do you forget the condition of the Whig party in Massachusetts ? Do you forget the overpowering influence of Mr. Webster? Do you forget how, after a few struggles of a reluctant nature, how completely it was

Am I, are we, of the Free Soil party, to forget what we have said to the people of Massachusetts, that the unfaithfulness of the two great parties, made the existence of a third party necessary? Ah, no, sir! Ah, no, sir! So far from flying in the face of the legislative will of Massachusetts, I fear Judge Loring has acted too much in accordance with it.

༈

Mr. Chairman, it is high time that I brought to a close these remarks in which you have so long and so patiently indulged me. Let us review calmly the whole field. Judge Loring has not, by acting as commissioner, violated the law of 1843. To hold that he has, would be giving the law a forced and unwarrantable construction, a construction not put upon it by any Legislature, or by your magistrates, or by either the supporters or opponents of the Fugitive Slave Law, a construction practically denied by Mr. Buckingham's movement in 1851, and by the bill you are about to introduce. He has not flown in the face of the legislative will of Massachusetts. On the contrary, I am ashamed to say, he has

acted in conformity with it. Now, sir, would it be dignified,
would it be altogether chivalrous in Massachusetts, standing
as she does upon the record, with her history of the last five
years before her, having submitted to the insults of South
Carolina, having been bearded in her own courts by the slave
power, having been afraid to do one legislative act, or even to
offer the vain oblation of one legislative resolution, would it
be quite the part of dignity and gallantry for her, the moment
she feels a little returning strength and security, to turn
round and strike down one of her own citizens, a powerless
man, who followed but too closely her own lead? I call him
a powerless man. He is so.
Who is more powerless than a
man who has made himself unpopular? Who more powerless
than a man who carries with him the consciousness of having
been the means, the instrument, of such a result as the return-
ing to bondage a man who had escaped into a free land?
Much has been said about his powerful friends. His phalanx
of peculiar friends and supporters, who have thrown them-
selves about him, doing his cause, in my opinion, more
harm than good, whose generic name has become famous,
have considerable influence within certain business and social
circles in the capital, but that, I think, has been somewhat
exaggerated. Beyond these circles, in the State at large, they
are powerless. They are worse than powerless, they are ex-
ceedingly unpopular. Their support is an injury, and their
patronage a disparagement. A public sentiment is arising
which threatens to destroy the influence of those who made
themselves active in the defence and execution of the late
Fugitive Slave Law. No Sir, let Massachusetts first put her-
self right upon the record. Let her lay a foundation on
which she has a right to stand. Let her entitle herself to
throw the first stone, and pluck out the mote. Let her de-
clare her legislative will, as she has not yet done, that her
magistrates shall not be commissioners under the law of 1850,
and let Judge Loring choose on that day which he will serve.
You have as much right to do that, as you have to say that
your Chief Justice shall not be a captain in the United States
army. Let her declare that neither her civil nor her military
machinery shall be used for the execution of the Fugitive
Law of 1850. Then, if one of your magistrates shall offend
against you, cut him off, and cast him from you. You will
be in a position to do it with dignity, as regards yourselves,
and in justice, as regards him.

I would end as I began. As between Mr. Edward Greely
Loring and the office he holds, we have nothing to say.

We

desire to see Massachusetts condemn, in any way she can with dignity and prudence, the course of a magistrate of hers, who voluntarily retains and executes an office, which, with his views of the law of 1850, he knew might, and probably would, require him to re-enslave an escaped bondman. We do not think that Judge Loring has violated any law of Massachusetts. We regret we cannot say that he has. We do not see in his conduct in the office of Commissioner, evidence of such a state of heart and head, as makes it expedient to remove him from a judicial office in Massachusetts, to rouse the slumbering lion of the Constitution, to invoke that great ultimate prerogative, which neither we nor our fathers have exercised. We respectfully ask you to place Massachusetts right upon the record, so that she can act with dignity and justice hereafter. We take the liberty to suggest to you, even, that you may condemn the course of Judge Loring, in your report, for acting as Commissioner at all, while he wore the judicial ermine of Massachusetts, though it was not in law forbidden him. You may say to him, if you choose, "We cannot strike you down with the weapon which the petitioners offer to our hand, therefore go in peace." This would be no triumph to him. Say to the petitioners, "we deeply sympathize in the feeling which brings you here. We shall be governed by the same feeling in our future action, but we do not think it prudent, looking to all time, and to the rights and interests of all men, we do not think it consistent with our dignity to enter upon the course you have opened to us.' The remonstrants believe that, in so doing, you will best preserve the proper independence of your judges, and the proper balance of your Constitution, which you are bound to regard. These are motives to influence you. We have another motive, which, in regulating our action, has co-operated with these. We fear that this step will involve the anti-slavery men of Massachusetts in a needless and doubtful issue, which they may live to regret; while we believe the course we recommend will secure the respect of all, and an ultimate ascendency to a sound and wholesome sentiment of liberty in the Commonwealth.