Dana, Richard Henry (1815-1882) Remarks of Richard H. Dana, Jr. Esq. before the Committee on Federal Relations on the proposed removal of Edward G. Loring, Esq. from the Office of Judge of Probate.
High-resolution images are available to schools and libraries via subscription to American History, 1493-1943. Check to see if your school or library already has a subscription. Or click here for more information. You may also order a pdf of the image from us here.
Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC00267.150 Author/Creator: Dana, Richard Henry (1815-1882) Place Written: Boston, Massachusetts Type: Pamphlet Date: 5 March 1855 Pagination: 28 p. ; 23.2 x 14.5 cm. Order a Copy
Dana, despite being an antislavery man, opposes the removal of Loring from his position as a Massachusetts probate judge. Printed in Boston by Alfred Mudge & Son.
In 1851 an escaped slave, Thomas Sims, was captured in Boston, and Loring ordered him to return to slavery in the South, sparking outrage from Boston abolitionists. In 1854, Loring ordered another escaped slave, Anthony Burns, to be returned to slavery in Virginia. Following the Burns decision, abolitionists, led by William Lloyd Garrison, agitated for Loring to be removed from his office as probate judge. These attempts were unsuccessful while Governor Henry J. Gardner was in office. In 1858, a new governor was elected, Nathaniel Prentice Banks, and the legislature passed another bill against Loring. Banks complied with the bill and removed him from office.
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.