been powerful and instructive. I incur the double hazard of seeming, by the omission of topics which they have treated, to disallow their importance; and by the repetition of arguments which they have advanced, to impair their strength. Prudence, therefore, and good taste, prescribe that I confine myself to a few supplementary suggestions, abstaining from that elaborate and complete discussion which the stage of the debate and personal considerations alike discourage. If the case of Judge Davis had seemed to depend in any considerable degree, on any question of local law or local policy, of this great State, I should have thought it presumptuous in me to appear for him, and would not have assumed to do so. In every view, it may be matter of regret to him, as well as to me, that my place is not held by some one of this full and able bar, whose learning and eloquence have been already so admirably represented here; and by some one of a recognized personal authority in the counsels of the people of Maine. But, Sir, it is impossible not to see, that the deliberation in which you are engaged, turns, in one of its aspects at least, on a deep and general question, in regard to which there can scarcely be, under the written constitutions of our country, such a thing as a local law or a local policy at all, and for the discussion of which no specific and local training or studies, are demanded or furnished anywhere. It is true the cause is here. The high forum is here. The judge whose official life, hopes, and honor are menaced; the judge, through whom the independence of all judges through whom the power of a coördinate department-supreme within its sphere, under your constitution, and all written constitutions, and all unwritten constitutions, pretending to be free and wise through whom that power is menaced he is here. It is your fundamental law, and your amendments of that law, and your statutes, and your legislative practice, that are immediately to be interpreted and applied. The topics, the responsibilities, the first results, are here. This is true, certainly. But yet the great first question on which this whole deliberation turns, or one which in one decisive aspect it turns, is an American question, and not a question of local law at all. It is one on which the presumption is absolutely conclusive in advance, that the doctrines of every State - preeminently so of such a State as this-will be found to be in conformity with a general and a grand American doctrine of law and liberty, old as any of our written constitutions, recognized by the terms and by the practical interpretations of every one of them in all periods -a doctrine, not one thing in Maine and another in Massachusetts; one thing in New York and another in South Carolina, and another in Ohio; not so-nor one to-day and another to-morrow; but a doctrine of American law and liberty, properly and exactly so denominated combining and reconciling security with liberty -maintained through all our history; pervading our whole system; held sacred in all transports of popular excitement; adopted and cherished in every commonwealth which under its local symbol owns the Union flag the boast, and the safety of all alike. On such a question we ought all to feel ourselves at home, before any judicial forum, and at the higher bar of any legislature - even this. And what is this larger, first question? I state it thus:With what specific purpose, and under what limitations have the people of Maine given to the legislature the power to remove, or to cause and coöperate in the removal, by address, of a judge of their highest judicial tribunal; and are you now about to use that power as they intended and expected it to be used when they gave it? Did they mean to authorize their agents and servants of one department-the legislature, or the legislature and governor to remove their agents and servants of another department- a judge or a bench of judges — admitted to be honest-admitted to be competent-for the single reason that in a case regularly before him or them, he or they formed and expressed an opinion on the interpretation of the constitution and a statute, (the interpretation of which belongs exclusively to the judge,) differing from the opinion entertained by you? Did the people give you the power to remove for such difference of opinion on the sense of the written law? Did they mean by this power of removal, after having distributed the functions of government among three classes of servants, and ordained for the well-being of the State, that one of these, the judiciary, shall, and the two others, legislative and executive, shall not, conclusively construe the constitution and the statute-did they mean, by the grant of this power, to say that you and the governor may punish, by deprivation of office, the judge for doing exactly what he is authorized to do, and you are not authorized to do— simply because you dislike the construction he makes? Did they mean to say that under this power, the legislature and the governor -for the sole and palpable purpose of making the judge utter your judgments and not his own, on a question which the people, by this same constitution, commits exclusively to his judgment, for this precise and only purpose may remove him? Did they mean to authorize you to supersede and absorb the practical functions of a whole department, which they have carefully established under the conviction that its existence and its independence of you, and its free and full action, were just as needful as your own? Was this their meaning; or did they intend that this power should be held and used in harmony with, and in trust for the whole constitution; that is to say, for the removal of the corrupt and incapable judge, found such after trial, upon written charges, and a hearing in his defence? This is the question, the ends, the purpose and limitations intended by the people of Maine. And I believe I only do this State the justice she may demand of all men, and pay her the respect which all ought to feel, when I assume that in framing this clause, she just intended to stand where all our States have stood; to stand where Massachusetts stood when she was of her, -to so large a degree her ornament, pride, and strength. How the people of America have answered this question, in other words, for what exact objects, and with what precise limitations they have given this power of removal, is hereafter to be examined. Thus far I have said only that it is one of general constitutional jurisprudence, and not of local law; aud I find in this my apology for presuming to discuss it here. Mr. President, have I not stated the question before you exactly as it arises? Am I not warranted in saying that the precise and the single reason on which you are moved to displace this judge, is that - admitted to be honest, and admitted to be competent he has put a judicial interpretation on a statute and on the constitution, which you think erroneous? And if so, is it not the true and sole inquiry, did the people mean to give you the power to do such an act, for such a cause? Sir, who comes to accuse Judge Davis of anything else? The causes of the proposed removal, your constitution requires to be stated of record, that he may defend to them. Here they are. And do they allege dishonesty or incompetency? Do they allege any one dishonest act? Do they allege any one act as evidencing dishonesty or incompetency? Do they ascribe his act as being or as proving corruption or unfitness? Nothing like it. No, Sir. These charges, these causes, whatever they are, tacitly admit him to be upright, capable, of pure intentions; in this very judgment conscientious; in this very judgment honestly in error only. If they intended, if they dared to breathe or inspire a doubt or suspicion of his integrity, his learning, his capacity, they were bound by the constitution to do so clearly, certainly, and boldly, that he might have given the scandal to the winds. There is no such charge, and there is no such insinuation. Honest error of opinion, that is the whole. "The head and front of his offending hath this extent, no more." Does this record say he did not take pains enough—all the pains he could to find the truth? No. Does it say the question was not a difficult one? No. Does it say that it was so clear and easy that his alleged mistake proves bad faith, or weakness, or ignorance? Not a word of it. Is it even pretended that he had seen the opinion of the Massachusetts judges, although in that opinion there is nothing whatever that should have changed his own? No. The charge is, that he did a certain act in direct course of judicial duties; a duty he would gladly have postponed; a duty forced on him; founded on a judicial opinion of the constitution and the statute; right, if that opinion was right: wrong, if that opinion was erroneous; but if a mistake, the mistake of a learned and able mind, after a conscientious search for truth, concerning the sense of a written law. "I should be ashamed of myself," a great judge somewhere says, "if to a question of common law I could not answer without taking time to reflect. I should be equally ashamed of myself if to a question of statute law I did not take time to answer. Time to answer was not given to Judge Davis. He was coerced into an immediate decision; and because some of you, and some elsewhere, think it erroneous, they demand his removal. That his decision was right, I entirely believe; that it was conscientious, and that in no man's judgment it proves unfitness, his accusers on this record and these proofs admit. Two or three allegations, or intimations, there are among the charges, which may require a remark; and which the facts now before you completely dispose of. He assumes, it is suggested, without any legal issue raised, and without judicial trial, to pronounce upon the comparative validity of these two competing sheriffs' commissions. Sir, if this means merely that the question was not before him on a quo warranto, or mandamus, or an action on a sheriff's bond, it is true, although it is nothing to the purpose. But if it means to deny that without procurement or connivance by him, against his wishes, against his recommendation, an issue was practically and regularly made up, and pending before him, and forced upon him, which it was indispensable for him to try at once, for the purpose of securing due and orderly proceeding in court, as much so as if a person should present himself at this moment and claim to preside over this Convention, if this record means to deny this, it is not true, and it is completely disproved by the evidence now before you. By that evidence you now know, that when the counsel of the last-commissioned sheriff gave him notice that he should appear with his client in court, and claim that he be declared and recognized as sheriff by the judge, he urged, as far as decorum and judicial self-respect would permit him to do it, or permit any honest, prudent, and firm judge to do it, that a question so delicate, possibly difficult, to his reflections as yet wholly new, should be presented at once to the whole court. He expressed his desire to facilitate this, and indicated the way to do it legally and promptly. You know that this suggestion was wholly disregarded; and that the determination to press the issue on him, had been, for some reason and on some policy, deliberately adopted, and was strenuously persisted in. You know that thereupon two persons came in open court, before the judge, and each then and there unrolled his commission, and made public claim, and demanded instant possession of an office in its nature indivisible. only could have it. One must have it. One was entitled to it, and was entitled to it at once. For the preservation of order in court; for the due, accustomed, and decent conduct of its business; to protect its justice from obstruction, and itself from One |