Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register

On the first day of September, 1779, a Convention of Delegates, elected for that special purpose, assembled at Cambridge,¹ and continued in session by successive adjournments until March 2, 1780. As a result of its labors, it submitted a “Constitution or frame of government,” which was accepted by the people, and remained in force, without alteration, for the next forty years. The action of Cambridge indicates a watchful regard for popular rights, and at the same time a commendable disposition to yield individual preferences for the sake of having some established government: At a town meeting, May 22, 1780,

Voted, unanimously, in favor of the Declaration of the Bill of Rights in the new frame of government. . . . . Forty-three voted to adopt said frame of government, and with the following amendments, (two against it). By way of instructions to our Delegate for Convention:—We therefore instruct you to use your endeavors to procure an erasement of the clause in the 4th Article of the 1st Section of the 1st Chapter of the Constitution, empowering the General Court to impose and levy duties and excises upon any produce, goods, wares, merchandize, and commodities whatever, brought into, produced, manufactured, or being, within the Commonwealth; because we conceive such a power to be oppressive and dangerous to the subjects of the State. It is oppressive, as employing a great number of persons to collect the revenue, who will swallow up a considerable part of it, and who will have the most favorable opportunities to carry on iniquitous [practices] without being detected. It is likewise oppressive, as the money is raised upon the consumers, and instead of being a tax upon trade, much more considerable sums of money are taken from our consumers and thrown into the hands of the sellers than would otherwise be transferred, because the sellers will put their advance upon the money they pay as excise, in addition to the advance upon the articles of sale. It is also oppressive, as the officers must necessarily be trusted with a right to make a forcible entry into the most retired apartments; for if they have not this power, the widest door will be open for perjury. It is dangerous to the liberty of the subjects, as the government would of course be trusted with unknown sums of money, and sums which from their own nature must be uncertain, and by means of this money they may secure such influence as may subvert the liberty