Page:A Brief History of the Constitution and Government of Massachusetts (1925).pdf/45

 and also the arguments of counsel, after which in due course they reported to the House or Senate. This report, of course, had to be acted upon by both bodies. If the committee favored removal they said so at the end of the report, then they further recommended that a joint committee, consisting of two on the part of the Senate and five on the part of the House be appointed to present the address to the Governor. Full reasons for the removal were given in the report of the Committees, and if there were dissenters they were allowed to file a report of their own. When the House and the Senate adopted the report the address was taken by this special Committee to the Governor. In the case of Judge Loring, the address read as follows: "The two branches of the Legislature in General Court assembled, respectfully request that your Excellency would be pleased by and with the advice and consent of the Council, to remove Edward Greely Loring from the office of Judge of the Probate Court for the County of Suffolk."

When the address reaches the Governor it consists merely of a request for the removal of the judge, and does not state any reasons as does the report of the Legislative Committee. The Governor after the receipt of the address presents the question of removal to the Council, and if the Council and the Governor favor removal the latter issues a writ of removal, sending a message to the Legislature informing them of the fact that removal has taken place.

In both of these cases the first attempt at removal was unsuccessful. Judge Loring was not only Judge of Probate, but also held a commission from the Federal Government as United States Commissioner. In the latter capacity he signed a warrant for the rendition of the negro fugitive, Anthony Burns. This act created a furore. The Legislature was appealed to by Judge Loring's opponents. Long