Xvii.
Such, sir, is the argument, briefly uttered, against the constitutionality of the Slave Act. Much more I might say on this matter; much more on the two chief grounds of objection which I have occupied. But I am admonished to hasten on. Opposing this Act as doubly unconstitutional from a want of power in Congress and from a denial of Trial by Jury, I find myself again encouraged by the example of our Revolutionary Fathers, in a case which is one of the landmarks of history. The parallel is important and complete. In 1765, the British Parliament, by a notorious statute, attempted to draw money from the colonies through a stamp tax, while the determination of certain questions of forfeiture under the statute was delegated—not to the courts of common law—but to Courts of Admiralty without a jury. The Stamp Act, now execrated by all lovers of liberty, had this extent and no more. Its passage was the signal for a general flame of opposition and indignation throughout the Colonies. It was denounced as contrary to the British Constitution on two principal grounds: first, as a usurpation by Parliament of powers not belonging to it, and an infraction of rights secured to the Colonies; and secondly, as a denial of Trial by Jury in certain cases of property. The public feeling was variously expressed. At Boston, on the arrival of the stamps, the shops were closed, the bells of the churches tolled, and the flags of the ships hung at half-mast. At Portsmouth, in New Hampshire, the bells were tolled, and notice given to the friends of Liberty to hold themselves in readiness to attend her funeral. At New York a letter was received from Franklin, then in London, written [149] on the day after the passage of the Act, in which he said: ‘The sun of liberty is set.’ The obnoxious Act, headed ‘Folly of England and Ruin of America,’ was contemptuously hawked through the streets. The merchants of New York, inspired then by Liberty, resolved to import no more goods from England until the repeal of the Act; and their example was followed shortly afterwards by the merchants of Philadelphia and Boston. Bodies of patriots were organized everywhere under the name of ‘Sons of Liberty.’ The orators also spoke. James Otis with fiery tongue appealed to Magna Charta. Of all the States, Virginia—whose shield bears the image of liberty trampling upon chains—first declared herself by solemn resolutions, which the timid thought ‘treasonable;’ but which soon found a response. New York followed. Massachusetts came next, speaking by the pen of the inflexible Samuel Adams. In an Address from the Legislature to the Governor, the true grounds of opposition to the Stamp Act, coincident with the two radical objections to the Slave Act, are clearly set forth:‘You are pleased to say that the Stamp Act is an act of Parliament, and as such ought to be observed. This House, sir, has too great reverence for the Supreme Legislature of the nation to question its just authority. It by no means appertains to us to presume to adjust the boundaries of the power of Parliament; but boundaries there undoubtedly are. We hope we may, without offence, put your Excellency in mind of that most grievous sentence of excommunication solemnly denounced by the Church in the name of the sacred Trinity, in the presence of King Henry the Third and the estates of the realm, against all those who should make statutes or observe them, being made, contrary to the liberties of Magna Charta. The Charter of this province invests the General Assembly with the power of making laws for its internal government and taxation; and this Charter has never been forfeited. The Parliament has a right to make all laws within the limits of their own constitution.’ * * * ‘The people complain that the Act vests a single judge of Admiralty with the power to try and determine their property in controversies arising from internal concerns, without a jury, contrary to the very expression of Magna Charta, that no freeman shall be amerced, but by the oath of good and lawful men of the vicinage.’ * * * ‘We deeply regret that the Parliament has seen fit to pass such an act as the Stamp Act; we flatter ourselves that the hardships of it will shortly appear to them in such a light, as shall induce them in their wisdom to repeal it; in the meantime, we must beg your Excellency will excuse us from doing anything to assist in the execution of it.’Thus in those days spoke Massachusetts! The parallel still proceeds. The unconstitutional Stamp Act was welcomed in the Colonies by the [150] Tories of that day precisely as the unconstitutional Slave Act has been welcomed by large and imperious numbers among us. Hutchinson, at that time Lieutenant Governor and Judge in Massachusetts, wrote to Ministers in England: ‘The Stamp Act is received with as much decency as could be expected. It leaves no room for evasion, and will execute itself.’ Like the judges of our day, in charges to grand juries, he resolutely vindicated the Act, and admonished ‘the jurors and the people’ to obey. Like Governors of our day, Bernard, in his speech to the Legislature of Massachusetts, demanded unreasoning submission. ‘I shall not,’ says this British Governor, ‘enter into any disquisition of the policy of this Act. I have only to say it is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain; and I trust that the supremacy of that Parliament over all the members of their wide and diffused empire never was and never will be denied within these walls.’ Like marshals of our day, the officers of the Customs made ‘application for a military force to assist them in the execution of their duty.’ The military were against the people. A British major of artillery at New York exclaimed, in tones not unlike those now sometimes heard: ‘I will cram the stamps down their throats with the end of my sword.’ The elaborate answer of Massachusetts—a paper of historic grandeur—drawn by Samuel Adams, was pronounced ‘the ravings of a parcel of wild enthusiasts.’
