The Writings of Samuel Adams, volume II (1770 1773)

S >> Samuel Adams >> The Writings of Samuel Adams, volume II (1770 1773)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28

If the Writers of those Letters shall appear to be innocent, no harm
can possibly arise from such a measure; if otherwise, it may be the
means of exploring the true Cause of the National and Collonial
Malady, and of affording an easy remedy, and therefore the measure
must be justified & applauded by all the World.

We have observed in the English Papers, the most notorious falsehoods
published with an apparent design to give the World a prejudice
against this Town, as the Aggressors in the unhappy Transaction of the
5th of March, but no account has been more repugnant to the truth,
than a paper printed in the public Advertiser3 of the 28th of April
which is called The case of Capt. Preston. As a Committee of this Town
we thought ourselves bound in faithfulness to wait on Capt Preston to
enquire of him whether he was the Author--he frankly told us that he
had drawn a state of his case, but that it had passed thro different
hands and was altered at different times, and finally the Publication
in the Advertiser was varied from that which he sent home as his own;
we then desired him to let us know whether several parts which we
might point to him and to which we took exception were his own, but he
declined Satisfying us herein, saying that the alterations were made
by Persons who he supposed might aim at serving him, though he feared
they might have a Contrary effect, and that his discriminating to us
the parts of it which were his own from those which had been altered
by others might displease his friends at a time when he might stand in
need of their essential Service; this was the Substance of the
Conversation between us, whereupon we retired and wrote to Capt
Preston a Letter the Copy of which is now inclosed.4

The next day not receiving an answer from Capt. Preston at the time we
proposed, we sent him a message desiring to be informed whether we
might expect his answer to which he replied by a Verbal Message as
ours was that he had nothing further to add to what he had said to us
the day before, as you'l please to observe by the inclosed
Certificate--

As therefore Capt Preston has utterly declined to make good the
charges against the Town in the Paper called his case or to let us
know to whom we may apply as the Author or Authors of those parts
which he might have disclaimed, and especially as the whole of his
case thus stated directly militates not only with his own Letter
published under his hand in the Boston Gazette, but with the
depositions of others annexed to our Narrative which were taken, not
behind the Curtain as some may have been, but openly and fairly, after
notifying the Parties interested, and before Magistrates to whose
credit the Governor of the Province has given his full attestation
under the Province Seal, we cannot think that the Paper called the
Case of Capt. Thomas Preston, or any other Paper of the like import
can be deemed in the opinion of the sensible and impartial part of
mankind as sufficient, in the least degree to prejudice the Character
of the Town. It is therefore altogether needless for us to point out
the many falsehoods contained in this Paper; nor indeed would there be
time for it at present for the reason above mentioned--We cannot
however omit taking notice of the artifice made use of by those who
drew up the statement, in insinuating that it was the design of the
People to plunder the King's Chest, and for the more easily effecting
that to murder the Centinel posted at the Custom House where the money
was lodged. This intelligence is said to have been brought to Capt
Preston by a Townsman, who assured him that he heard the mob declare
they would murder the Centinel.--The townsman probably was one
Greenwood a Servant to the Commissioners whose deposition Number 96.5
is inserted among others in the Narrative of the Town and of whom it
is observed in a Marginal Note, that: "Through the whole of his
examination he was so inconsistent, and so frequently contradicted
himself, that all present were convinced that no credit ought to be
given to his deposition, for which reason it would not have been
inserted had it not been known that a deposition was taken relating to
this affair, from this Greenwood by Justice Murray and carried home by
Mr. Robinson," and further "this deponent is the only person, out of a
great number of Witnesses examined, who heard anything mentioned of
the Custom House." Whether this part of the Case of Capt Preston was
inserted by himself or some other person we are not told. It is very
much to be questioned whether the information was given by any other
than Greenwood himself, and the sort of Character which he bears is so
well known to the Commissioners and their Connections some of whom
probably assisted Capt Preston in stating his Case, as to have made
them ashamed if they regarded the truth, to have given the least
credit to what he said.--Whoever may have helped them to this
intelligence, we will venture to say, that it never has been and never
can be supported by the Testimony of any Man of a tolerable
reputation. We shall only observe upon this occasion, how inveterate
our Enemies here are, who, rather than omit what they might think a
lucky opportunity of Slandering the Town, have wrought up a Narrative
not only unsupported by, but contrary to the clearest evidence of
facts and have even prevailed upon an unhappy Man under pretence of
friendship to him, to adopt it as his own: Though they must have known
with a common share of understanding, that it's being published to the
world as his own must have injured him, under his present
Circumstances, in the most tender point, and so shocked was Capt
Preston himself, at its appearing in the light on this side the Water,
that he was immediately apprehensive so glaring a falsehood would
raise the indignation of a people to such a pitch as to prompt them to
some attempts that would be dangerous to him, and he accordingly
applyed to Mr Sheriff Greenleaf for special protection on that
account: But the Sheriff assuring him that there was no such
disposition appearing among the People (which is an undoubted truth)
Capt Preston's fears at length subsided: and he still remains in safe
custody, to be tried by the Superior Court of Judicature, at the next
term in August; unless the Judges shall think proper further to
postpone the Trial, as they have done for one whole term, since he was
indicted by the Grand Jury.

Before we conclude it may not be improper to observe that the removal
of the troops was in the Slowest order, insomuch that eleven days were
spent in carrying the two Regiments to Castle Island, which had before
landed in the Town in less than forty eight hours; yet in all this
time, while the number of the Troops was daily lessening, not the
least disorder was made by the inhabitants, tho' filled with a just
indignation and horror at the blood of their fellow Citizens, so
inhumanely spilt! And since their removal the Common Soldiers, have
frequently and even daily come up to the Town for necessary
provisions, and some of the officers, as well as several of the
families of the soldiers have resided in the Town and done business
therein without the least Molestation; yet so hardy have our Enemies
been as to report in London that the enraged populace had hanged up
Capt Preston.

The strange and irreconcileable conduct of the Commissioners of the
Customs since the 5th of March--their applying for leave to retire to
the Castle as early as the tenth, and spending their time in making
excursions into the Country 'till the 20th of June following, together
with other material Circumstances, are the subject of our present
enquiry; the result of which you will be made acquainted with by the
next conveyance. In the mean time we remain with strict truth.--

Sir
Your much obliged
and most Obedient Servants

THOMAS CUSHING,WM PHILLIPS,
RI DANA,WM MOLINEUX,
SAML ADAMS,EBENEZER STORER,
JOHN HANCOCK,WM GREENLEAF

1Under the date of March 23, 1770, James Bowdoin, Samuel Pemberton and
Joseph Warren, as a committee of the town of Boston, wrote to Lord
Dartmouth, enclosing a narrative of the events of March 5 and a
certified copy of the vote of town, on March 22, directing them to
transmit the printed narrative. The original letter is No. 320 of Lord
Dartmouth's American MSS., at Patshull House. The text of the same
letter, which was addressed to the Duke of Richmond and others, is in
A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston, New York, 1849.
(This is reprinted, with notes by John Doggett, Jr., from a copy of
the original edition of 1770, in the library of the New York
Historical Society. Another reprint, with notes by Frederic Kidder,
was published at Albany, 1870.) The Additional Observations to a Short
Narrative, 1770, are reprinted by Doggett, pp. 109-117. Cf.,
Proceedings of Colonial Society of Massachusetts, April 1900, pp.
13-21.
2The town of Boston, on July 10, 1770, appointed a committee of nine,
including Adams, Hancock, Dana, Cushing and Joseph Warren, to prepare
a "true state" of the town and of the acts of the commissioners since
March 5.
3Published in London. The "Case" was also printed in the Annual
Register, 1771. Cf., Boston Gazette, June 25, 1770.
4Under date of July II, 1770. A copy is in S. A. Wells, Samuel Adams
and the American Revolution, vol. i., pp. 230-232.
5The affidavit of Thomas Greenwood, sworn to March 24, 1770, is
printed in Doggett's edition of the Short Narrative, pp. e Short
Narrative, pp.101-103.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR.

[MS., Boston Public Library; a text, with many modifications of
detail, is in Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 240-248; it was also
printed in the Boston Gazette, August 6, 1770.]

In the House of Representatives August the 3 1770

Orderd that Mr Hancock Cap Thayer Mr Pickerin Cap Fuller and Cap
Sumner carry up to the Honbl Board the following Answer of this House
to his Honors Speech to both Houses at the opening of this Session

THOMAS CUSHING Spkr

1 May it please your Honor

The House of Representatives, having duly attended to your Speech2 to
both Houses at the Opening of this Session, and maturely considerd the
several parts of it, have unanimously, in a full House determind to
adhere to their former Resolution "that it is by no means expedient to
proceed to Business, while the General Assembly is thus constraind to
hold the Session out of the Town of Boston." Upon a Recollection of
the Reasons we have before given for this measure, we conceive it will
appear to all the World, that neither the good People of this
Province, nor the House of Representatives can be justly chargd with
any ill Consequences that may follow it. After the most repeated &
attentive Examination of your Speech, we find Nothing to induce us to
alter our Opinion, and very little that is new & material in the
Controversy: But as we perceive it is publishd, it may possibly be
read by some who have never seen the Reasons of the House; and as
there are specious things containd in it, which may have a Tendency to
make an unhappy Impression on some minds, we have thought proper to
make a few Observations upon it.

You are pleasd to say, "you meet us at Cambridge, because you have no
Reason to think there has been any Alteration in his Majestys
Pleasure, which you doubt not was determind by wise motives, & with a
gracious Purpose to promote the Good of the province." We presume not
to call in Question the Wisdom of our Sovereign or the Rectitude of
his Intentions: But there have been Times, when a corrupt and
profligate Administration have venturd upon such Measures, as have had
a direct Tendency, to ruin the Interest of the People as well as that
of their Royal Master.

This House have great Reason to doubt, whether it is, or ever was his
Majestys Pleasure that your Honor should meet the Assembly at
Cambridge, or that he has ever taken the matter under his Royal
Consideration: Because, the common and the best Evidence in such
Cases, is not communicated to us.

It is needless for us to add any thing to what has been heretofore
said, upon the Illegality of holding the Court any where except in the
Town of Boston: For admitting the Power to be in the Governor to hold
the Court in any other place when the publick Good requires it; yet,
it by no means follows that he has a Right to call it at any other
place, when it is to the manifest Injury & Detriment of the Publick

The Opinion of the Attourney and Solicitor General has very little
Weight with this House in any Case, any farther than the Reasons which
they expressly give are convincing. This Province has sufferd so much
by unjust, groundless & illegal Opinions of those officers of the
Crown, that our Veneration or Reverence for their Opinions is much
abated. We utterly deny that the Attuorny & Solicitor General have any
Authority or Jurisdiction over us; any Right to decide Questions in
Controversy, between the several Branches of the Legislature here: Nor
do we concede, that even his Majesty in Council has any Constitutional
Authority to decide such Questions, or any other Controversy whatever
that arises in this Province, excepting only such Matters as are
reservd in the Charter. It seems a great Absurdity, that when a
Dispute arises between the Governor and the House, the Governor should
appeal to his Majesty in Council to decide it. Would it not be as
reasonable for the House to appeal to the Body of their Constituents
to decide it? Whenever a Dispute has arisen within the Realm, between
the Crown & the two Houses of Parliament, or either of them, was it
ever imagind that the King in his privy Council had Authority to
decide it? However there is a Test, a Standard common to all, we mean
the publick Good. But your Honor must be very sensible that the
Illegality of holding the Court in any other place besides the Town of
Boston is far from being the only Dispute between your Honor & this
House: we contend, that the People & their Representatives have a
Right to withstand the abusive Exercise of a legal & constitutional
Prerogative of the Crown. We beg Leave to recite to your Honor what
the Great Mr Locke has advancd in his Treatise of civil Government,
upon the like Prerogative of the Crown. "The old Question, says he,
will be asked in this matter of Prerogative, who shall be Judge when
this Power is made a right Use of?" And he answers, "Between an
executive Power in being with such a Prerogative, and a Legislature
that depends upon his Will for their convening, there can be no Judge
on Earth, as there can be none between the Legislative & the People,
should either the Executive or Legislative when they have got the
Power in their Hands, design or go about to enslave or destroy them.
The People have no other Remedy in this, as in all other Cases, where
they have no Judge on Earth, but to appeal to Heaven. For the Rulers,
in such Attempts, exercising a Power the People never put into their
Hands (who can never be supposd to consent that any Body should rule
over them for their Harm) do that which they have not a Right to do.
And when the Body of the People or any single Man is deprivd of their
Right, or under the Exercise of a Power without Right, and have no
Appeal on Earth, then they have a Liberty to appeal to Heaven whenever
they judge the Cause of sufficient moment. And therefore, tho the
People cannot be judge, so as to have by the Constitution of that
Society any superior Power to determine and give effective Sentence in
the Case; yet they have by a Law antecedent & paramount to all
positive Laws of men, reservd that ultimate Determination to
themselves which belongs to all Mankind where there lies no Appeal on
Earth viz to judge whether they have just Cause to make their Appeal
to Heaven." We would however, by no means be understood to suggest
that this People have Occasion at present to proceed to such
Extremity.

Your Honor is pleasd to say, "that the House of Representatives in the
year 1728, did not think the Form of the Writ, sufficient to justify
them in refusing to do Business at Salem"; It is true they did not by
any Vote or Resolve determine not to do Business yet the House, as we
read in your Honors History, "met and adjournd from Day to Day without
doing Business";3 and we find by the Records, that from the 31 of
October 1728 to the 14th of December following the House did meet and
adjourn without doing Business; And then they voted to proceed to the
publick & necessary Affairs of the province "provided no Advantage be
had or made, for and by Reason of the aforesaid Removal (meaning the
Removal to Salem) or pleaded as a precedent for the future." Yet your
Honor has been pleasd to quote the Conduct of that very House, as a
precedent for our Imitation. We apprehend their proceeding to
Business, & the Consequences of it viz, the Encouragement it gave to
Governor Burnet to go on with his Design of harrassing them into
unconstitutional Compliances, and the Use your Honor now makes of it
as an Authority and a Precedent, ought to be a Warning to this House
to make a determind & effectual Stand. Their Example, tho respectable,
is not obligatory upon this House.--They lived in times, when the
Encroachments of Despotism were in their Infancy.--They were carried
to Salem, by the mere Caprice of Governor Burnet, who never pleaded an
Instruction for doing this--An Instruction from a Ministry who had
before treated them with unexampled Indignity--An Instruction which
they were not permitted to see. They had no Reason to apprehend a fixd
Design to alter the Seat of Government, to their great Inconvenience
and the manifest Injury of the Province.

We are not disposd to dispute the Understanding, Integrity, Familys &
Estates of the Council in 1728. We believe them to have been such,
that if they were now upon the Stage, they would see so many
additional & more weighty Reasons against proceeding to Business out
of Boston, that they would fully approve of the Resolution of this
House; as well as of what has been lately advancd by their Successors,
who are also Gentlemen of Understanding, Integrity, Fortune and
Family, in the following Words; "Governor Burnets Conduct in convening
the General Court out of Boston, cannot be deemd an acknowlegd or
constitutional Precedent, because, it was not founded on the only
Reason on which the Prerogative of the Crown can be justly founded,
The Good of the Community." We shall only add, that the Rights of the
province having been of late years most severely attackd, has inducd
Gentlemen to examine the Constitution more thorowly, & has increasd
their Zeal in its Defence.

You are pleasd to adduce an Instance in 1754 in Addition to that in
1747, which you say "makes it probable, that the House of
Representatives rather chose that the Court should sit elsewhere, when
a Comittee was chosen to consider of and report a proper place for a
Court House at a Distance from Boston". We beg Leave here to observe,
that both these are Instances of the House's interresting themselves
in this Affair, which your Honor now claims as a Prerogative: If the
House were in no Case to have a Voice, or be regarded, in chusing a
place to hold the Court, how could they think of building a House in a
place, to which they never had been, and probably, never would be
called.--

While the House have been from time to time, holding up to View, the
great Inconveniencys and manifest Injurys resulting from the Sitting
of the Assembly at Cambridge, and praying a Removal to Boston, it is
with Pain that they have heard your Honor, instead of pointing out any
one good Purpose which can be answerd by it, replying that your
Instructions will not permit you to remove the Court to Boston. By a
royal Grant in the Charter, in favor of the Commons of this province,
the Governor has the sole power of adjourning, proroguing and
dissolving the General Court: And the Wisdom of that Grant appears in
this, that a person residing in the province, must be a more competent
Judge, of the Fitness of the Time, and we may add, the place of
holding the Court, than any person residing in Great Britain. We do
not deny, that there may be Instances when the Comander in Chiefe,
ought to obey the Royal Instructions: And should we also admit, that
in ordinary Cases he ought to obey them, respecting the convening,
holding, proroguing, adjourning & dissolving the General Court,
notwithstanding that Grant; yet we clearly hold, that whenever
Instructions cannot by complyd with, without injuring the people, they
cease to be binding. Any other Supposition would involve this
Absurdity in it, that a Substitute by Means of Instructions from his
Principal, may have a greater Power than the Principal himself; or in
other Words, that a Representative of a King who can do no Wrong, by
means of Instructions may obtain a Right to do Wrong: for that the
Prerogative extends not to do any Injury, never has and never can be
denyd. Therefore this House are clearly of Opinion, that your Honor is
under no Obligation to hold the General Court at Cambridge, let your
Instructions be conceivd in Terms ever so peremptory, in as much as it
is inconvenient and injurious to the province.--As to your Commission,
it is certain, that no Clause containd in that, inconsistent with the
Charter can be binding: To suppose, that when a Grant is made by
Charter in favor of the people, Instructions shall supercede that
Grant, and oblige the Governor to act repugnant to it, vacating the
Charter at once, by the Breath of a Minister of State. Your Honor
thinks you may safely say, "there is not one of us, who if he was in
your Station, would venture to depart from the Instructions ." As you
had not the least Shadow of Evidence to warrant this, we are sure you
could not say it with Safety: And we leave it with your Honor to
determine, how far it is reconcileable with Delicacy to suggest it. In
what particulars the holding the General Court at Cambridge is
injurious to us and the Province, has already been declared by the
House, and must be too obvious to escape your Honors Observation. Yet
you are pleasd to tell us, that "the Inconveniences can easily be
removd, or are so inconsiderable that a very small publick Benefit
will outweigh them"--That they are not inconsiderable, every Days
Experience convinces us; nor are our Constituents insensible of them:
But how they can be easily removd, we cannot conceive, unless by
removing the Court to Boston. Can the publick Offices & Records, to
which we are under the Necessity of recurring, almost every Hour, with
any Safety or Convenience to the publick be removd to Cambridge? Will
our Constituents consent to be at the Expence of erecting a proper
House at Cambridge, for accommodating the General Court, especially
when they have no Assurance that the next Freak of a capricious
Minister will not remove the Court to some other place? Is it possible
to have that Communication with our Constituents, or to be benefited
by the Reasonings of the people without Doors here, as at Boston? We
cannot but flatter ourselves, that every judicious and impartial
Person will allow, that the holding the General Court at Cambridge, is
inconvenient and hurtful to the Province; Nor has your Honor ever yet
attempted to show a single Instance, in which the province can be
benefited by it: No good purpose which can be answerd by it, has ever
yet been suggested by any one to this House. And we have the utmost
Confidence, that our gracious Sovereign, has no Desire to hold the
General Court at any place inconvenient to its Members, or injurious
to the province; but rather, that he will frown upon those, who have
procurd its Removal to such a place, or persist in holding it there.

We are not indeed sure, that the Ministry caused the Assembly to be
removd to Cambridge, in order to worry them into a Compliance with any
arbitrary Mandate, to the Ruin of our own or our Constituents
Libertys: But we know, that the General Assembly has in Times past
been treated with such Indignity and Abuse, by the Servants of the
Crown, and a wicked Ministry may attempt it again.

Your Honor observes, that "the same Exception may be made to the Use
of every other part of the prerogative, for every part is capable of
Abuse." We shall never except to the proper Use of the prerogative: We
hold it sacred as the Liberty of the Subject. But every Abuse of it,
will always be excepted to, so long as the Love of Liberty, or any
publick Virtue remains. And whenever any other part of the prerogative
shall be abusd, the House will not fail to judge for themselves of the
Grievance, nor to exert every power with which the Constitution hath
entrusted them, to check the Abuse, and redress the Grievance.

The House had expressd to your Honor their Apprehension of a fixd
Design, either to change the Seat of Government, or to harrass us, in
order to bring us into Compliance with some arbitrary Mandate: Your
Honor says, you know of no fixd Design to harrass us &c.: Upon which
we cannot but observe, that if you did not know of a fixd Design to
change the Seat of Governmt you would not have omitted so fair an
Opportunity to satisfy the Minds of the House, in a Matter of such
Importance to the Province. As to your very condescending and liberal
Professions, of exercising patience, or using Dispatch, as would be
most agreable to us, we shall be very much obligd to your Honor, for
the Exercise of those Virtues, whenever you shall see Cause to remove
us to our ancient and established Seat: But these professions can be
no Temptations to us, to give up our Privileges.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28