[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: History Rhymes (JAMES OTIS AND THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE) History Rhymes Guest Post by poputonian Boston attorney James Otis was especially offended. The British were free people. When he argued in 1761 against the Writ of Assistance, that scurrilous document which allowed the British government access to a citizen's home and personal records -- without having first obtained a court issued warrant -- Otis used the British constitution as evidence that the writs were illegal. He did not make any claims that Americans were unique and deserved special freedoms, but instead asserted the rights of the British citizen, of which he and the others in Massachusetts Bay colony were one. There was no thought of rebellion or independence. At trial on February 24, 1761, Otis argued against his own government that the writs were… Otis spoke before the five judge panel in opposition to his own government for more than four hours. He cited English law and the precedents against entering someone’s home: "Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. They may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient." Otis continued by calling the general writs a "wanton exercise of power" and warned the Royal Court in Massachusetts about what happens to political tyrants who wrap themselves double-speak: < BLOCKQUOTE>"I argue with the greater pleasure, as it is in favor of British liberty at a time when we hear the greatest monarch upon earth declaring from his throne that he glories in the name of Briton, and that the privileges of his people are dearer to him than the most valuable prerogatives of his Crown. And as it is in opposition to a kind of power that cost one king of England his head and another his throne, I have taken more pains in this cause than I ever will take again." At this point Otis shifted to the natural liberties of man, which, along with the Magna Charta formed the foundation of English law. Although no transcript exists, another Boston lawyer, twenty-five year John Adams, was in the courtroom and described Otis’ dissertation: "He asserted that the security of these rights to life, liberty, and property had been the object of all those struggles against arbitrary power, temporal and spiritual, civil and political, military and ecclesiastical, in every age." "He asserted that our ancestors, as British subjects, and we their descendants, as British subjects, were entitled to all those rights by the British constitution as well as by the law of nature and our provincial character as much as any inhabitant of London or Bristol orany part of England, and were not to be cheated out of them by any phantom of "virtual representation" or any other fiction of law or politics or any monkish trick of deceit and hypocrisy." Historian John Galvin in a work titled "Three Men of Boston" summarized Otis' court room speech: "Since every barrister for miles around had been present in the room, Otis’ words were prime news in Boston and the province for days. He had detailed the drift away from charter rights, constitutional principles, and most of all from the former respect for individual rights. He had illuminated for all to see the movement of arbitrary power away from the traditional democratic bases of British government." Next, a most important point from Galvin: Otis wasn't revolutionary at that moment, but because his government continued, and accelerated its act of coercion, Otis' disagreement with his government indeed became a revolutionary cause. Recalling the emotions he felt watching Otis on February 24, 1761, John Adams pinpointed that day as the beginning of a chain of causation: "American Independence was then and there born. The seeds of patriots and heroes were then and there sown. Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of Assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain." . digby 5/13/2006 06:40:00 AM
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: aristeides, Zipporah, Dakmar, Red Jones, Fred Mertz, Itisa1mosttoolate, Peetie Wheatstraw, BTP Holdings, tom007 (#0)
Nothing new under the sun.... Must have been a wonderful argument. Otis spoke before the five judge panel in opposition to his own government for more than four hours. He cited English law and the precedents against entering someone’s home:
It is a1most too late
#3. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#2)
Maybe Otis felt that way too at the time.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||