In JA's hand, one large sheet folded three times to make a pocket-size gathering of sixteen pages; seven pages are blank. Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 185. Printed by CFA in 2 JA, Works 521–523, and, with extensive annotation, in Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 469–476. For the dating, see note 23 above.

That is, the procedure for taking and selling property for nonpayment of taxes authorized under Province Law. Act of 3 Oct. 1730, c. 1, §§12, 13, 2 A&R 552–553.

Anthony Fitzherbert, New Natura Brevium (various edns.: French, ca. 1531–1635; English, 1652–1793).

The Registrum Brevium, or Register of Writs, a semi-official compilation based on the medieval manuscript registers kept by clerks of Chancery and practitioners. See Percy H. Winfield, The Chief Sources of English Legal History 298–302 (Cambridge, Mass., 1925). The writs to which Thacher refers are found in Registrum Brevium tam Originalium quam Judicialium, Appendix 46–47 (London, 4th edn., 1687). Gray points out that they direct the sheriff to assist a “party to a suit in chancery to get possession, under a decree of the Court, of lands withheld from him by another party to the suit.” Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 396.

As the remarks of Otis and Gridley, notes 17 69 , 34 86 , below, indicate, the work referred to here is William Brown's Compendium of the Several Branches of Practice in the Court of Exchequer at Westminster (London, various edns., 1688–1725). The writ in question, found at p. 358–361 in the 1688 edition, is set out in full in Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 398–399. See an extract, note 17 69 below. See also notes 12 above, 16 68 below. A work entitled The Modern Practice of the Court of Exchequer (London, 1731) contains nothing even resembling a writ of assistance.

13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 11, §5(2) (1662), extracted by JA, text at note 40 92 below. The section cited bears Thacher out, but it probably should be read with 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 11, §15, providing that no goods “shall be seized as forfeited” except by persons authorized by the Customs Commissioners, the Treasury, or the Crown.

Presumably Horne v. Boosey, 2 Str. 952, 93 Eng. Rep. 963 (K.B. 1733): Trover held to lie against a tidesman (a minor official charged with searching vessels for prohibited goods), who had seized goods ashore and had them condemned in the Exchequer. The Court noted a distinction between a seizure by “a proper officer,” which could be attacked only in the Exchequer, and the seizure by this defendant, “who could not enter a house without a writ of assistance and a peace officer, the words of his warrant being so restrained.” See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 470 note.

That is, 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 11, note 6 58 above. For the Act of 7 & 8 Will. 3, see note 15 above.

Gray has identified this case as McNeal v. Brideoak, SCJ Rec. 1754, fol. 150 (Suffolk, Feb. 1754), in which the complainants, Ann and Mary McNeal of Dublin, proceeded as “Debtors and Accountants to his Majesty.” The action, described as a “Bill in Equity,” was dismissed and the complainants were allowed an appeal to the King in Council, of which no record has been found. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 470–471 note. Compare Quincy, Reports 54. See Min. Bk. 67, SCJ Suffolk, Nov. 1752, N–137; Feb. 1754, C–26. The Exchequer jurisdiction in question, either legal or equitable, arose from a writ known as quominus, because the plaintiff made a fictional allegation that he was debtor to the King for the amount of his claim and was “by which less” able to meet his debt. The court acted by virtue of its power in matters affecting the royal purse. See 3 Blackstone, Commentaries *45–46; Plucknett, Concise History 160–161, 170. The Massachusetts court's refusal to act would seem to be a reflection more of its lack of equity powers than of any desire to disclaim the powers of Exchequer, conferred on it by statute. Act of 26 June, 1699, c. 3 §1, 1 A&R 370, set out, note 46 98 below. The writ of assistance was part of the Exchequer's common-law revenue jurisdiction, rather than an equitable process. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 538–539; Brown, Compendium 28–29; note 18 above; note 30 82 below.

Thacher here seems to be citing Leglise v. Champante, 2 Str. 820, 93 Eng. Rep. 871 (K.B. 1728) where in an action at law against a customs officer for the seizure of goods which the Exchequer had found not liable to forfeiture, “it was held, that in these cases the officer seizes at his peril, and that a probable cause is no defense.” The authority of this case is cast in doubt by the statute, 19 Geo. 2, c. 34, §16 (1746), continued to 29 Sept. 1764 by 32 Geo. 2, c. 18, §1 (1759), which made a court's certification of probable cause a bar to any suit against the seizing officer. See 12 Viner, Abridgment 173. It seems to have been well established in England, however, that in case of a wrongful search as distinct from a wrongful seizure, probable cause was not a defense to an action, even when the search had been carried out by virtue of a writ of assistance. See authorities cited in Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 533–534 note. These cases were all decided after 1761, but even if this had clearly been the rule when Thacher argued, it would seem to cut against his position, since it demonstrates that the power given by the writ could be curbed by the courts.

Illegible in the MS. Gray's reading is “incroached.” Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 471 note. It is textually more likely, but hardly more satisfactory than CFA's reading of “infringed.” 2 JA, Works 521.

For the powers of customs officers to enter on special warrant see 12 Car. 2, c. 19 (1660) quoted, note 5 above. In a number of situations the General Court granted provincial customs and other officers power to obtain a special search warrant to search specific premises upon giving information to a justice of the peace. See for example, Act of 13 Feb. 1760, c. 28, §25, 4 A&R 311 (Collector of excise to search for liquors sold without permit); Act of 3 Feb. 1764, c. 28, §5, 4 A&R 684 (Sheriff or constable to have warrant to search for flesh or skins of moose and deer killed out of season). Prior to the Import Act of 20 April 1756, c. 47, §§18–20, 3 A&R 936, province customs officers had the right to search in all suspected places “for illegally imported goods.” In the 1756 act and thereafter the general provision was retained, but officers with a warrant on oath of information could force an entry to search. Compare Act of 27 June 1755, c. 1, §§18, 19, 3 A&R 845. See Frese, Writs of Assistance (dissertation) 179 note, 181 note.

Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 82.

“But it seems to be very questionable whether a Constable can justify the Execution of a general Warrant to search for Felons or stolen Goods, because such Warrant seems to be illegal in the very face of it; for that it would be extremely hard to leave it to the discretion of a common Officer to arrest what Persons, and search what Houses he thinks fit. And if a Justice cannot legally grant a blank Warrant for the Arrest of a single Person, leaving it to the Party to fill it up, surely he cannot grant such a general Warrant, which might have the effect of an Hundred blank Warrants.”

Gray's suggestion that JA meant to write, “If some of em are commissioned others are uncommissioned,” seems sound in context, although the MS also supports CFA's reading of “common” and “uncommon.” Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 472 note; 2 JA, Works 522.

This is apparently a reference to the prior practice in Massachusetts. See text and note 17 above. Gray reads the passage as “Government Justices” and suggests that it is a reference to the 17th-century English practice under which justices of the peace would issue warrants authorizing a general search for stolen goods upon the complaint of one who had been robbed. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 472 note. See also 2 JA, Works 522. There is a passage in JA's “Abstract,” at note 33 135 below, in which Otis goes on at some length about the former powers of Justices of the Peace to issue general warrants. The use of the phrase “perpetual Edicts” in the present text, however, surely indicates a writ giving a general power of search, rather than the more limited Justice's warrant.

Probably a reference to the form of a writ in Brown's Compendium. See note 5 57 above, note 34 86 below. Although this work was not published until 1688, the form recites that the customs officers therein given writs were commissioned by virtue of Letters Patent dated “anno regni nostri vicesimo septimo” (in the twenty-seventh year of our reign), which could refer to no English monarch ruling between Elizabeth I and George II except Charles II. The date of the form would thus be between 1676 and 1685, the year of Charles II's death.

Gray notes that the language of the writ is “so curious a justification of Otis's suggestion” that he reprints it in full. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 398–399. As the following extract may suggest, it is certainly an interesting example of the degeneration of Latin:

“Ac etiam in tempore diurno unacum Constabular' Praeposito Anglice Headborough aut alio publico officiario prope inhabitan” intrare & ire in aliquas Cellas Anglice Vaults Cellur' Repositor' Anglice Warehouses Shopas vel alia loca scrutare & videre utrum aliqua bon' res vel merchandizas. . . . Ac aperire aliquos riscos Anglice Truncks cistas pixid' fardell' Packs fatt' vel de la Bulke quecunque in quibus aliqua bona res vel merchandiz' erint suspect' fore paccat' vel concelat.'” Id. at 399.

See Clare v. Clare, Talb. 21, 26–27, 25 Eng. Rep. 638, 640 (Ch. 1734) (Talbot, Lord Chancellor):

“The case of Higgins versus Dowler is very imperfectly reported; and was upon a Demurrer, where Things are not argued with that Nicety which they are upon arguing the Merits of a Cause. That of Stanley and Lee has not been particularly mentioned; so that what we have of it is only upon memory: And I think it much better to stick to the known general rules, than to follow any one particular precedent which may be founded on reasons unknown to us: Such a proceeding would confound all Property. . . . The Case of Lady Lanesborough versus Fox is the strongest authority that can be; and even, had it not been in the House of Lords, I should have thought myself bound to go according to the general and known Rules of Law.”

Probably an inadvertence for the writ itself. A statute in the language of the petitions upon which the case came up would have been neither unconstitutional nor effective. See text at note 22 above. The petition of Charles Paxton for a writ in 1755, printed at note 47 99 below, even if it had been urged in this case, is scarcely less neutral in tone. But compare Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 474 note. Gray suggests that the phrase “natural equity” means that Otis cited Lord Hobart's language in Day v. Savadge, Hobart 85, 87, 80 Eng. Rep. 235, 237 (C.P. 1615): “Even an act of Parliament, made against naturall equitie, as to make a man judge in his owne case, is void in it selfe, for Jura naturae sunt immutabilia, and they are leges legum.” See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 521–524. See note 41 above.

That is, the courts of justice, which “execute” the law. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 474 note; No. 46, text at note 15 92 . Compare Hutchinson's Charge to the Grand Jury, March Term, Suffolk, 1769:

“We, Gentlemen, who are to execute the Law, are not to enquire into the Reason and Policy of it, or whether it is constitutional or not. . . . We, and you, Gentlemen, as the Executive Body, are to enquire what is Law, and see that the Laws are inforced. If we step over this Line, and judge of the Propriety or Impropriety, the Justice or Injustice of the Laws, we introduce the worst sort of Tyranny:—the most absolute Despotism being formed by a Union of the Legislative and Executive Power.” Quincy, Reports 307–308.

Bonham's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 113b, 118, 77 Eng. Rep. 646, 652–653 (C.P. 1610), here cited by Otis from the extract of it in 19 Viner, Abridgment 512–513, tit. Statutes (E. 6, p. 15), which is as follows (variations in Coke's text being indicated in brackets):

“It appears in our Books, That in several [many] Cases the Common Law shall [will] controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; For when an Act of Parliament is against Common Right and Reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law shall[will] controul it, and adjudge it[such act] to be void, and therefore in 8 E. 3. 30. a. b. Thomas Tregor's Case upon the Statute of Westm. 2. cap. 38 & Artic. super Cartas cap. 9 Herle said, that Sometimes [some] Statutes are made contrary to [against] Law and Right which the Makers of [those who made] them perceiving will not put them in Execution.”

The reference has not been identified, but it is presumably to the debates in Parliament on 23 Geo. 2, c. 29 (1750) prohibiting iron manufacture in the colonies. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 474 note. This is the only mention of the statutes regulating colonial trade and manufacture in either of JA's contemporary accounts. In his later letters, however, JA described Otis' massive attack of “four or five hours” on these Acts. See 10 JA, Works 315–350. He also told Tudor in a letter of 21 Aug. 1818 that “Mr. Otis asserted all these acts to be null and void by the law of nature, by the English constitution, and by the American charters, because America was not represented in Parliament.” Id. at 351. This statement would not seem to be justified by the bare reference here.

Freeman v. Bluet, 12 Mod. 394, 396, 88 Eng. Rep. 1403, 1404 (K.B. 1700), an action against a court officer who had seized goods in replevin under a precept from the sheriff directing a return. In upholding a demurrer to a plea of justification, on the ground that it did not allege a return, Holt, C.J., said,

“in all Capias's ad Respondend, or other mean Process to [the] Sheriff [or other immediate officer], if Trespass or false Imprisonment be brought against him for executing them, he cannot justify without showing a Return . . . for, he that has not shewed to the Court that he has done his Duty in what the Process of the Court required him, shall not be justified by the Process.”

That is, the statutes of Charles II referred to in the next paragraph. Compare Thacher's remark, text at note 6 58 above.

12 Car. 2, c. 19, §1 (1660), discussed, note 5 above.

13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 11, §5(2) (1662), text at note 40 92 below.

7 & 8 Will. 3, c. 22, §6 (1696), text at notes 42–45 94–97 below.

That is, 1 Anne, stat. 1, c. 8, §5 (1702), providing for continuation of the writ of assistance and other processes after the death of the sovereign. JA's notes may be somewhat garbled, but Otis seems to be saying that this statute is of equal force whether the writs are special or general in nature. See his remarks in JA's “Abstract,” text at notes 32–34 134–136 , and following note 46 148 below.

These incidents are more fully described in JA's “Abstract,” text at notes 38–42 140–144 below.

Otis is here apparently rehearsing Thacher's arguments, text at note 9 61 above, that the Superior Court had renounced the Exchequer powers given it by province law (note 46 98 below). The last sentence, which may be inaccurately reported by JA, seems to mean that the only Exchequer powers which the court retained were those given it by provincial and parliamentary Acts of Trade and Revenue over violations of their provisions. See note 18 above. If this is the argument, it may prove too much. For, while the provincial statutes contained sharply limited search provisions (see note 12 64 above), in cases under English statutes it could well be argued that the power to issue writs of assistance was a power incident to the revenue jurisdiction, rather than an inherent chancery power which the court had renounced.

At notes 42–45 94–97 below.

The 12th of Charles II is quoted, note 5 above. For the “14th” (i.e. 13th & 14th) of Charles II, see text at note 40 92 below.

Apparently an inadvertence for 1 Anne, stat. 1, c. 8, §5 (1702). The confusion, whether in Gridley's argument or JA's reporting, may perhaps be explained by the fact that the duration of Parliament and the Privy Council and the tenure of all Crown officers was extended for six months after the death of the sovereign by 6 Anne, c. 7, §§4, 8 (1707).

That is, Brown's Compendium, cited in note 5 57 above.

Under the various Licensing Acts which controlled the British press during the greater part of the 17th century, the imprimatur was a required proof that permission to publish had been granted. See 6 Holdsworth, History of English Law 367–378. Upon occasion, however, the judges used it to convey some opinion of a book's value. See John William Wallace, The Reporters 34 note (Boston, 1882). The Compendium bears no such judgment, but only the statement, “Imprimatur, R. Wright, May 1st, 1688.” This was Sir Robert Wright, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, 1687–1688. Gray suggests that Wright's incompetence weakens the value of his imprimatur, relying largely on the judgment of Roger North, whose brother, Baron Guilford, was Wright's personal enemy. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 477 note. See 6 Holdsworth, History of English Law 507–508, 530, 534. Both Wright's rise to judicial eminence and his conduct upon the Bench under the Stuarts were politically tainted, as was his end, which came in Newgate in 1689 while under indictment for high treason and bribery. He was nevertheless a lawyer of long experience, having entered Lincoln's Inn in 1654, been made serjeant in 1679, and been appointed a Baron of the Exchequer in 1684. DNB .

That is, Sir Edward Coke, Booke of Entries; containing perfect and approved Presidents of Counts, Declarations, etc. (London, 1614), and William Rastell, Colleccion of entrees, of declaracions, of barres, replications, rejoinders, issues, verdits, and divers other matters and fyrst an Epistle, with certayne instructions (London, 1566). As to these two basic works on common law pleading, see 5 Holdsworth, History of English Law 384, 461. The volumes of Brown which Gridley owned were probably his Formula bene placitandi; a Book of Entries, containing Precedents (London, 1671), and Methodus Novissima intrandi Placita Generalia (London, 1699). See 5 Holdsworth, History of English Law 385–386; 6 id. at 600, 683, 686.

See note 2 54 above.

See Dalton, Country Justice 404: “The Officer, upon any Warrant from a Justice, either for the Peace or Good Behaviour, or in any other Case where the King is a Party, may by Force break open a Man's House to arrest the Offender.” Compare 2 Hale, Pleas of the Crown 82, 92, to the effect that an officer may break a house to arrest a suspect felon, “for it is a proceeding for the king by persons by law authorized”; but that a private person does so at his peril. But see 2 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 86–87: “But where one lies under a probable suspicion only, and is not indicted, it seems the better Opinion at this Day, That no one can justify the Breaking open Doors in Order to apprehend him.”

The material following is in a more careful hand and was evidently added to the foregoing by JA at some time after the argument.

That is, 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 11, §5(2) (1662). Quotation marks supplied; italics are JA's.

There was considerable confusion between this spelling and “assistance.” In the Nov. 1761 argument Gridley urged that “assistants” was correct, and that it signified the controlling power which a constable could exercise in the search. Quincy, Reports 56–57. Contemporary sources indicate that the original spelling was “assistance.” See, for example, Thomas Manley, ed., A Collection of the Statutes Made in the Reigns of King Charles I and King Charles II 131 (London, 1667); J. Keble, ed., Statutes at Large 1216 (London, 1676); compare 5 Statutes of the Realm 394 (London, 1819). Although this spelling was followed in the index to the 1688 edition of Brown's work on Exchequer practice (note 5 57 above), “assistants” is found in all editions of the Statutes at Large published between 1681 and 1758. See, for example, Keble, ed., Statutes at Large 1218 (London, 2d edn., 1681); William Hawkins, ed., Statutes at Large, 2:583 (London, 1735). In editions of 1758 and after, however, the spelling is once again “assistance.” See John Cay, Statutes at Large, 2:708 (London, 1758); Owen Ruffhead, Statutes at Large, 3:237 (London, 1763). It seems probable that the confusion was due to an error in Keble's 1681 edition of the Statutes at Large. According to R. C. Jarvis, present Intelligence Officer and Librarian, H.M. Customs and Excise, “assistance” is merely an archaic form of “assistants,” meaning a body of official helpers. Letter of 8 Nov. 1963 and memorandum in Adams Papers editorial files. Compare OED . If this interpretation is correct, Gridley's view is sound, regardless of the spelling adopted.

That is, 7 & 8 Will. 3, c. 22, §6(2) (1696). Quotation marks supplied. Passages omitted by JA are set out in notes 43 95 and 44 96 below from Hawkins, Statutes at Large.

JA has here omitted the following: “for visiting and searching of ships, and taking their entries, and for seizing and bringing on Shoar any of the Goods prohibited to be imported or exported into or out of any of the said Plantations or for which any Duties are payable or ought to have been paid, by any of the aforementioned Acts.”

JA has here omitted the following:

“And that all the Wharfingers, and Owners of Keys and Wharfs, or any Lightermen, Bargemen, Watermen, Porters, or other Persons assisting in the Conveyance, Concealment or Rescue of any of the said Goods, or in the hindring or Resistance of any of the said Officers in the Performance of their Duty, and the Boats, Barges, Lighters or other Vessels, employed in the Conveyance of such Goods shall be subject to the like Pains and Penalties as are provided by the same Act made in the Fourteenth Year of King Charles the Second, in relation to prohibited or uncustomed Goods in this Kingdom.”

The section continues with provisions for penalties upon officers who violate the Act and for special pleading on their behalf in actions brought against them for performance of their duties. See note 10 62 above.

That is, Act of 26 June 1699, c. 3, §1, 1 A&R 370. JA's reference here may be to the text of the Act in Acts and Laws of His Majesties Province of Massachusetts Bay 114 (Boston, 1726), where it appears as 11 Will. 3, c. 3. The relevant section is as follows:

“[T]here shall be a Superiour Court of Judicature, Court of Assize and General Goal Delivery, over this whole Province, to be Held and Kept Annually at the respective Times and Places in this Act hereafter mentioned and expressed, by One Chief Justice, and Four other Justices to be Appointed and Commissionated for the same. Any Three of whom to be a Quorum, who shall have Cognizance of all Pleas, Real, Personal or Mixt, as well all Pleas of the Crown, and all matters relating to the Conservation of the Peace, and Punishment of Offenders; as Civil Causes or Actions between party and party; and between His Majesty and any of His Subjects, whether the same do concern the Realty, and relate to any Right of Freehold and Inheritance; or whether the same do concern the personalty, and relate to matter of Debt, Contract, Damage or personal Injury; and also all mixt Actions which concern both realty and personalty brought before them by Appeal, Review, Writ of Error, or otherwise as the Law directs. And generally of all other Matters as fully and amply to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as the Courts of Kings Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer within His Majesty's Kingdom of England, have, or ought to have. And are hereby Impowred to give Judgment therein, and award Execution thereupon.”

JA has here copied the form of petition used by Charles Paxton in applying for a writ in 1755. The original, printed by Gray, was captioned, “To the Honourable his Majestys Justices of his Superior Court for said Province to be held at York in and for the County of York on the third Tuesday of June 1755.” The writ was issued by order of the Superior Court in August 1755. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 402–403 and notes. The document is now in MHi:Misc. MSS.

JA has here copied the form of the writ issued to Paxton. The original has not been found. As Gray, who printed JA's copy, notes, it is a translation of the form in Brown's Compendium, note 5 57 above. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 404 note.

Missing in worn margin of the MS. This is Gray's reading. The Latin is “volunt'.” Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 399, 404.

As to Sewall, see note 20 above.

The text that follows is the most complete rendition possible today of JA's “Abstract of the Argument for and against the Writts of Assistance,” probably made by him sometime in the spring of 1761. See text at note 49 above. Five versions of this famous document are here brought together: (1) The text of the Gridley and Thacher arguments from Israel Keith's Common Place Book, as printed in Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 479–482, from a document then (1864) in the possession of John Newell of Pittsford, Vt., and Boston, which recent extensive search has not located; (2) the text of the Gridley and Otis arguments from the Joseph Hawley Common Place Book now in NN:Hawley Papers; (3) the text of the Otis argument as printed in the Massachusetts Spy, 29 April 1773, p. 3, cols. 1–3; (4) the text of the Otis argument as printed in George Richards Minot, Continuation of the History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 2:91–99 (Boston, 1803), with paraphrases of the arguments of Gridley and Thacher; (5) Minot's text of the Otis argument as reprinted by CFA with some further minor corrections and the elimination of phrases which JA had described as interpolations, in 2 JA, Works 523–525. All five versions are closely related. The Spy and Minot texts of Otis differ only in corrections of grammar and style, apparently made by Minot, and CFA follows the latter, except for the interpolations. The Hawley version of Otis and that in the Spy are identical, with the exception of material apparently omitted in copying by Hawley and certain touches of style omitted, perhaps for editorial reasons, from the Spy. Gray did not print Keith's text of Otis, but we have his testimony that it closely followed Minot. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 482. A similar identity prevails among the various texts of the Gridley and Thacher arguments, including Minot's paraphrase.

Although no copy in JA's hand has been found, the evidence that his was the common parent of these five versions seems overwhelming. The similarity in content and phraseology to JA's rough notes has already been pointed out, as have his later recollections that it was his notes which appeared first in the Spy, then in Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay. See text and note 51 above. For other circulation of the “Abstract,” see note 52 above. The best independent evidence of JA's authorship is the Keith Common Place Book. Keith, Harvard 1771, served in the Continental Army and was admitted an attorney in the Superior Court for Suffolk County in March 1780. No record of his clerkship has been found, but he undoubtedly studied law in Boston both before and after his military service. His Common Place Book was said to contain not only the argument on the writs, but other legal notes known to have come from JA. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 478. On the basis of this evidence it seems a fair conclusion that Keith copied both the argument and the other materials either from JA's own papers, or from a copy by someone who had clerked for him. The history of the Hawley version cannot be so readily traced, but since Joseph Hawley was JA's friend and contemporary at the bar, it seems likely that he too copied the arguments from JA. The only other reasonable hypothesis would seem to be that the Keith and Hawley texts were copied from a summary of the argument which another (perhaps Jonathan Williams Austin, whom JA accused of the 1773 “theft” of the materials, text at note 1 above) had made on the basis of JA's on-the-spot notes, which are indubitably the source of the longer version. This theory seems refuted by the evidence of the diary entry, note 49 above, and by JA's later taking credit for the Spy and Minot texts.

The basic texts followed here are Gray's rendition of the Keith version of Gridley's and Thacher's arguments, and the Massachusetts Spy version of the Otis argument. These are textually the most complete versions and are probably also closest to the missing original. In the footnotes, variations with the other versions have been noted where they seem significant, either as touches of style that might have been JA's, or as examples of later editorial practice.

The following text of Gridley's and Thacher's arguments is from Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 479–482. See note 1 103 above. Gray pointed to the first paragraph, placing the argument on the second Tuesday of the term, as corroboration of the Keith document's “antiquity and authenticity,” since an order of court at the August term 1759 had provided that “the special pleadings shall come on the second Tuesday in each term.” Id. at 479; see Min. Bk. 71, SCJ Suffolk, Aug. 1759, following N–73. The Massachusetts Spy's version of the Otis argument began with the first sentence of this introduction (erroneously dated Feb. term, 1771), and added that Gridley “endeavoured to support the legality of Writs of Assistance by force of several statutes and precedents in England, but his chief stay he acknowledged was the necessity of the case, and in the course of his arguments he discovered himself to be an ingenious lawyer.” Massachusetts Spy, 29 April 1773, p. 3, col. 1.

James Cockle, Collector of Customs at Salem from 1760 to 1764. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 422–424. That Cockle was one of the officers who sought writs seems certain from the fact that one was granted to him shortly after the second argument in Nov. 1761. Id. at 422. Paxton was probably the first to apply, however, and the matter was actually heard on the petitions of the merchants and the Surveyor General. See notes 22, 27, above.

The Hawley MS is headed “Substance of Mr. Gridley's Argument Before the Superior Court in favor of Writs of Assistance.” The argument begins: “May it please your honors.”

Hawley: “Great Britain” for “England.”

Hawley here supplies the inadvertent omission of “given.”

Hawley omits the writ. According to Gray, who also omitted it from his rendition of the Keith MS, it was the writ granted to Paxton in 1755, printed in text at note 48 100 above, which JA had apparently copied from the court files. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 480.

Hawley here supplies “Court of.”

13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 11, §5(2). See JA's copy, text at note 40 92 above. The text of the statute is omitted by Hawley.

12 Car. 2, c. 19, note 5 above.

Hawley: “Province” for “country.”

Hawley here adds “&c.” and omits the remainder of the present sentence.

7 & 8 Will. 3, c. 22, §6. See JA's copy, text and notes 42–45 94–97 above. Hawley omits some portions quoted here.

It has been suggested that “like assistance” in 7 & 8 Will. 3, c. 22, §6, may be a reference to 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 11, §32, providing that royal officers and others concerned were to “be aiding and assisting” the customs officers in performance of their duties. Frese, “Early Parliamentary Legislation on Writs of Assistance,” 38 Col. Soc. Mass., Pubns. 318, 354 note (1959). While “like assistance” certainly does not literally refer to the writ of assistance, the phrase is broad enough to include it as well as the aid and assistance of other officers.

That is, 11 Will. 3, c. 3, 1 A&R 370. See JA's copy, text at note 46 98 above.

Apparently supplied by Gray. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 481.

Fitzherbert's New Natura Brevium . See note 3 55 above.

Horne v. Boosey, note 7 59 above. This helps to establish that the “Abstract” is from JA's rough notes, although the case may not have been cited for this proposition.

Correction apparently by Gray. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 482. Compare JA's rough notes at note 9 61 above. Interestingly enough, the same error appears in Minot's paraphrase. 2 Minot, History of Massachusetts Bay 90.

The text of Otis' argument, up to the sentence at note 47 149 below, is from the Massachusetts Spy, 29 April 1773, p. 3, cols. 1–3. The argument was introduced as follows:

“For the massachusetts spy. mr. thomas, As the public have been lately alarmed with the evil and wicked effects of the power lodged in custom-house officers, by virtue of that most execrable of all precepts, a Writ of Assistance: And as I conceive it to be more immediately destructive of the liberty of the subject, than any other innovation of power: The following is offered to the public, being taken from the mouth of that great American oracle of law, James Otis, Esq; in the meridian of his life.”

Then follows the material quoted in note 2 104 above, concluding with “Mr. Otis appearing for the inhabitants of Boston, with his usual zeal for the common liberties of mankind, spoke as follows, viz.”

Minot substitutes “them” for “the court,” a change typical of his minor improvements of style, most of which will not be noted herein.

Hawley here adds “almighty.”

Minot: “law” for “the constitution.”

This word apparently is illegible in the original. Hawley read it as “answered.” CFA has changed Minot's reading of “descend” to “discerned,” which is probably correct.

Minot omits this sentence.

In 1769, Otis published in the Boston Gazette a deposition alleged to be Paxton's, dated 28 Feb. 1761, which indicates that a more direct cause of his resignation as Advocate General of Admiralty was the attack upon the Vice Admiralty Court that resulted in the case of Gray v. Paxton, note 21 above. See Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 542 note. Robert Auchmuty was shortly thereafter appointed to the position. See the latter's biography in 12 Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates 12–16.

George III, in his accession speech on 18 Nov. 1760, had actually said:

“Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Briton; and the peculiar happiness of my life will ever consist in promoting the welfare of a people, whose loyalty and warm affection to me, I consider as the greatest and most permanent security of my throne; and I doubt not, but their steadiness in those principles will equal the firmness of my invariable resolution to adhere to, and strengthen, this excellent constitution in church and state; and to maintain the toleration inviolable. The civil and religious rights of my loving subjects are equally dear to me with the most valuable prerogatives of my crown: and, as the surest foundation of the whole, and the best means to draw down the divine favour on my reign, it is my fixed purpose to countenance and encourage the practice of true religion and virtue.”

This speech was reprinted in its entirety in the Boston News-Letter, 15 Jan. 1761, p. 1, cols. 2–4. In his diary for 9 Feb. 1761, JA set down his favorable reaction to the speech, concluding “These are sentiments worthy of a King—a Patriot King.” 1 JA, Diary and Autobiography   200–201.

As Gray points out, this “popular cause” was probably Gray v. Paxton. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 482. See note 21 above.

This clause was rendered by Hawley, “whom guilt, malice or folly has made my foes,” and by Minot, “whose guilt, malice or folly has made them my foes.”

Hawley: “worthy a gentleman, a man of sense, or a Christian, are, to sacrifice estate, ease, health, honor, applause.”

Hawley: “the patriot, the man and the hero.”

Hawley and Minot supply “place.”

See text at note 13 65 above.

Minot: “places” for “houses.”

Hawley: “raise” for “excite.”

The preceding clause, beginning “until the trump,” is one omitted by CFA, on the basis of JA's comments. The presence of both this and the other omitted passage (note 37 139 below) in the Keith and Hawley MSS supports Gray's suggestion that in repudiating them JA “was guided by his taste rather than his notes or his memory.” Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 479. JA's notation that these passages were interpolations may be seen in his copy of Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay at p. 95–96, now among his books in the Boston Public Library.

This sentence, beginning “What is this,” is the second passage omitted by CFA because disclaimed by JA. See note 36 138 above.

Hawley telescopes this entire episode into “where the same Mr. Ware from a principle of revenge went on to search a number of houses from Garret to Cellar.”

Minot: “finished.”

Minot: “said Mr. Ware.”

Minot: “uncustomed” — no doubt a proper correction.

Compare the account in the version of the argument in the Boston Gazette for 4 Jan. 1762, attributed to Otis. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 490. Jonathan Pew (or Pue) (d. 1760) was Searcher and Surveyor of the Port of Boston from 1735 until he was succeeded by Paxton in 1752. At the latter date he entered into the same office at Salem, where he served until his death. Book of Charters, Commissions, Proclamations, &c., fols. 80, 173–175, M-Ar; Wolkins, ed., “The Boston Customs District in 1768,” 58 MHS, Procs. 418, 430 (1924–1925). Nathaniel Ware was Comptroller of Customs for the Port of Boston from 1750 until 1764. Book of Charters, &c., fols. 79–80; Wolkins, “Boston Customs District,” 58 MHS, Procs. 418, 430. Abiel Walley was appointed a Justice of the Quorum in Suffolk County, 5 Nov. 1740. Whitmore, Mass. Civil List 128. No documentation of these incidents has been found.

Minot omits “monsters in the law.”

Minot omits “THE.”

Hawley adds “principles of law.”

Hawley omits the remainder of this paragraph.

The next sentence appears only in the Hawley MS. See note 1 103 above. It may be an elaboration of the well-known passage, “the executive courts must pass such acts into disuse.” See notes 42, 20 72 , above.

This paragraph appears in the Hawley MS. At least the first sentence of it also appears in the Keith MS. Quincy, Reports (Appendix) 482. See note 1 103 above.