hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 386 0 Browse Search
William H. Seward 168 0 Browse Search
Daniel Webster 145 1 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 132 2 Browse Search
Europe 130 0 Browse Search
John Brown 126 0 Browse Search
France (France) 110 0 Browse Search
William Lloyd Garrison 110 0 Browse Search
Louis Napoleon 96 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 92 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Wendell Phillips, Theodore C. Pease, Speeches, Lectures and Letters of Wendell Phillips: Volume 1. Search the whole document.

Found 636 total hits in 106 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
Kane (search for this): chapter 9
as such, that he took the official oath. It follows, then, that if Marshal Freeman should direct Judge Loring to aid in catching a slave, and he should refuse, the House of Representatives could impeach him for official misconduct. I think no one but a Slave Commissioner will maintain that this is law. Mr. Loring contends that he was bound to issue the warrant, holding as he did the office of Commissioner! Who obliged him to hold the office? Could he not have resigned, as many — young Kane of Philadelphia, and others-did, when first the infamous act made it possible that he should be insulted by an application for such a warrant? There was a time when all of us would have deemed such an application an insult to Edward G. Loring. Could he not have resigned when the application was made, as Captain Hayes of our police did, when called on to aid in doing the very act which Mr. Loring had brought like a plague on the city? Could he not have declined to issue the warrant or take
Massachusetts Judge (search for this): chapter 9
ependent judiciary. Mr. Chairman, we are fully aware of its importance. We know as well as our fellow-citizens the unspeakable value of a high-minded, enlightened, humane, independent, and just judge; one whom neither fear, favor, affection, nor hope of reward can turn from his course. It is because we are so fully impressed with this, that we appear before you Taking our history as a whole, we are proud of the Bench of Massachusetts. You have given no higher title than that of a Massachusetts Judge to Sewall, to Sedgwick, to Parsons. Take it away, then, from one who volunteers, hastens, to execute a statute which the law as well as the humanity of the nineteenth century regards as infamous and an outrage. We come before you, not to attack the Bench, but to strengthen it, by securing it the only support it can have under a government like ours,--the confidence of the people. You cannot legislate judges into the confidence of the people. You cannot preach them into it; confide
George Ticknor Curtis (search for this): chapter 9
erence between a judge like Shaw, who, thinking he has no power to arrest the Slave Act when once set in motion, refuses to. interfere, and a judge like Loring, who actually sets the Slave Act m motion, and personally executes it! The statute of 1843 only orders our officers not to aid in catching slaves. It does not order them to prevent everybody else from catching slaves. Loring actually hunted a slave, and sent him to Virginia. Shaw only declared himself unauthorized to prevent George T. Curtis from hunting fugitive slaves. Surely, there is some slight difference here. In consenting, then, to act as a Slave Commissioner, while holding the office of a Probate Judge, Mr. Loring defied the well-known, settled, religious convictions of the State, officially made known to him. The question was one of vital, practical morality of the gravest importance; one where justice was on one side and infamy on the other. He cannot complain if you consider this heedless or heartless choic
Story (search for this): chapter 9
ittee to take this clause into consideration. That committee consisted of Messrs. Story of Salem (Judge Story, of the Supreme Court of the United States), John PhiJudge Story, of the Supreme Court of the United States), John Phillips of Boston (Judge of the Common Pleas Court of Massachusetts, and President of the Senate), Martin of Dorchester, Cummings of Salem (Judge of the Common Pleas), the government, but, on the contrary, it was a strong branch. Then comes Judge Story. If anybody ever was, J may say, a little crazy on the subject of the independence of the judges, it was the late able and learned Judge Story,--at least during the last half of his life. What does he say? He says:-- The Governor andif the judge has no right to be heard. That is the opinion of the learned Judge Story as to the power of the Legislature. I have no fear of the voice of the people, says Judge Story. All he proposed was, that the judge should have an opportunity to be heard. What was the result of this discussion? The Convention propose
James Trecothick Austin (search for this): chapter 9
, Andrews of Newburyport, Holmes of Rochester, Hills of Pittsfield, Austin of Charlestown (High Sheriff of Middlesex County), Leland of Roxbur(present Chief Justice of the Commonwealth), Marston of Barnstable, Austin of Boston (since Attorney-General of the Commonwealth), and Bartlethe general current of the discussion. The next speaker is James Trecothick Austin,---the name of one who will not be suspected of being too to quote him on my side. Nobody objects to this provision, said Mr. Austin. There sat Prescott, Shaw, Webster, Story, Lincoln,--the men whons. The remonstrant here says, I have not touched a statute. Mr. Austin says, No matter whether you have or not; $ a man may do a vast de the very nature and intent of the power, which is well stated by Mr. Austin, when he says that a judge who has lost the confidence of the comw, but cannot be technically held by impeachments. Remember what Mr. Austin says, describing just this case in the extract I have twice quote
Adam Smith (search for this): chapter 9
d in such secrecy, and so exactly at the same moment, as to deprive Burns of all chance from this measure. How eminently worthy such plotting as this of a Massachusetts judge!--of one who assures you that he has scrupulously obeyed the laws of Massachusetts! Well, Gentlemen, it is said,--I cannot state it on any thing but rumor,--that, as the crowning act of his unjudicial conduct, he communicated his decision to one party twenty hours before he communicated it to the other, so that Messrs. Smith, Hallett, Thomas, Suttle, & Co. had time to send down into Dock Square and have bullets cast for the soldiers who were to be employed to assist the slave-hunter; had time to inform the. newspapers in the city what they intended to do;--while Messrs. Dana and Ellis, counsel for the prisoner, were allowed to go to their homes in utter ignorance whether that decision would be one way or another. Where can you find, in the whole catalogue of judicial enormities, an instance when a judge rev
Oliver Wendell Holmes (search for this): chapter 9
ntion, which met in 1820, appointed a committee to take this clause into consideration. That committee consisted of Messrs. Story of Salem (Judge Story, of the Supreme Court of the United States), John Phillips of Boston (Judge of the Common Pleas Court of Massachusetts, and President of the Senate), Martin of Dorchester, Cummings of Salem (Judge of the Common Pleas), Levi Lincoln of Worcester (afterwards Judge of our Supreme Court and Governor of the Commonwealth), Andrews of Newburyport, Holmes of Rochester, Hills of Pittsfield, Austin of Charlestown (High Sheriff of Middlesex County), Leland of Roxbury (afterwards Judge of Probate for Norfolk County), Kent of West Springfield, Shaw of Boston (present Chief Justice of the Commonwealth), Marston of Barnstable, Austin of Boston (since Attorney-General of the Commonwealth), and Bartlett of Medford, --a committee highly respectable for the ability and position of its members. Permit me to read a section of their Report (p. 136):--
Bradbury (search for this): chapter 9
d in the Constitution, one would naturally infer that this other power referred to misconduct not official, and not expressly prohibited by statute. In addition to the mere letter of the Constitution, and the inference from the fact of two powers being granted, we have the action of the Commonwealth in times past. I have not time for historical details, but the power of address, whenever it has been used in this Commonwealth, has been used to remove judges who had not violated any law. Judge Bradbury was removed, I think, for mental incapacity, resulting from advancing age. Of course, intellectual inefficiency is not impeachable; it is not such misconduct or maladministration as renders a man liable to impeachment; but the Constitution, in order to cover the whole ground, has left with the Legislature the power to remove an inefficient judge, -a judge who has grown too old to perform his duties. But it happens that this clause of the Constitution has been passed upon,--not, indeed
Chair (search for this): chapter 9
ute, and before the case began, the judge should call one of the claimants before him and say, I advise you to compromise this matter, for I think your deed is not worth a straw! Who would trust his case to such a judge? But here is a man put before a judge to be tried on an issue which Dr. Channing says is as solemn as that of life or death, and the judge is found at midnight, with the pregnant intimation that that man must be bought, or he is not safe! What right had he to say that? Mr. Chair. man, the case may have been so clear even then, before it was half begun, that every man in the Commonwealth, save one, would have been obliged to say that Burns was a fugitive; but there was one pair of lips that honor and official propriety ought to have sealed, and those were the lips of the judge who was trying the case. Yet he is the very man who is found babbling! He seemed to be utterly lost to all the proprieties of his position. Colonel Suttle selling Burns on the 27th of May!
Richard H. Dana (search for this): chapter 9
er proceeded to try him. By accident, Mr. Richard H. Dana, Jr. had heard that such a trial was to be to examine the witness. After a short time, Mr. Dana rose, (he had no right to rise, technically s in his argument, alluding to the same scene, Mr. Dana says:-- Burns was arrested suddenly, on as before him a helpless man,--in the words of Mr. Dana, terrified, stupefied, intimidated, and beginso to speak, that prevents such an outrage as Mr. Dana's protest describes. Now, your petitioners agle witness, interrupted by the protests of Messrs. Dana and Ellis,--the mere disjecta membra of a tn the city what they intended to do;--while Messrs. Dana and Ellis, counsel for the prisoner, were as. I cannot speak to you, Mr. Thomas, unless Mr. Dana or Mr. Ellis is here. Call them, and then I t's counsel; on Friday, at nine o'clock, to Messrs. Dana and Ellis, and the world!! What a picturr hands the able arguments of Messrs. Ellis and Dana, as well as that remarkable Decision which Judg[1 more...]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...