
    Memorial of the Town of Boston.
    PROVINCE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
    To his Excellency the Governour in Council. The Memorial of the Town of Bolton.
    Humbly shews, —
    THAT your Memorialists, having a just Sense of the Value of the British Constitution of Government, under which they have enjoyed all the Blessings of civil Life, cannot but be deeply affected, when the Channels through which these Blessings are derived to us are obstructed; which, at Present, is our unhappy Case. The Courts of Law within the Province, in which alone Justice can be distributed among the People, so far as respects Civil Matters, are to all Intents and Purposes shut up; for which your Memorialists apprehend no just and legal Reason can be assigned.
    
      1765.
    
    We have always understood, that the Law is the great Rule of Right, the Security of our Lives and Property, and the Best Birthright of Englishmen.
    Under these Apprehensions, we make our humble Application to your Excellency in Council, with whom the Executive Power within the Province is constitutionally lodged, that you would be pleased to give such Directions, to the several Courts and their Officers, as that, under no Pretence whatever, we may be any longer deprived of this invaluable Blessing. And your Memorialists pray that they may be heard upon this most important Subject by their Council learned in Law.
    And, as in Duty bound, they ever pray, &c.
    Attest,
    W. C., Town Clerk.
    
      Present: His Excellency Francis Bernard, Esqr., Governour, &c., in Council.
    
    
      
       Alluding to the Transactions at the late Congress.
    
    
      
       Vid. Molloy de Jure Mar. p. 6, ⅝ 9,
    
    
      
       Vid. Molloy De Jure Mar. ch. 2, ⅞ 5.
    
    
      
       See Boston Gazette, December 30, 1765, January 6, 1766. 2 John Adams’s Works, 174.
    
    
      
      
        Qu. if Fofter’s Crown Law, 269, might not have been argued upon by way of Analogy.
    
    
      
       ⅝. If Locke on Government, ch. 19, ⅝ 219, would not have been pertinent to the Quellion.
      ⅝. If the Authority from the Year-Book, 19 H. 6, p. 63, would not have been pertinent in the preceding Debate.—“The Law is the greateft Inheritance the King has, for by the Law He Himfelf, and all his Subjefts are governed; and if there was no Law, there would be no King, nor Inheritance.
    
    
      
      
        (3) The refult of thefe arguments and the action taken by the Council in the premifes will appear from the following record of a Town Meeting held on the 21ft of December, 1765. Town Records, 1765, Fol. 670 :
      “ 3 o’clock P. M. Met according to Adjournment.
      
        “ Mr. Adams again Reported — That the Honourable the Council “ had come into fome Refolves relative to the Memorial of the Town “ to His Excellency in Council, a Copy of which had been handed him “by the Deputy Secretary, which Refolves being read, it was Voted “ that the fame be entreed upon the Town Records — and they are as “ follows — viz* —
      “ ‘ At a Council held at the Council “ ‘ Chamber in Bolton upon Sattur- “ 4_day the 21st Day of Decemr.
      “ ‘1765»
      “ The Board proceeded to the Confideration of the Memorial of the “ ‘ Town of Bofton, and came to the following Refolves, viz*. —
      “ That a Queftion in Law neceffarily arifes from faid Memorial, “ namely, Whether the Officers of the Courts of Law can be juftified in “ 4 proceeding in their relpective Offices with unftamp’d Papers, and it is “ ‘ thereupon — Refolved that it is the Bufinefs of the Courts of Law to “ determine Points of Law, nor can the Board with any Propriety direft “ or advife the faid Courts in fuch Judgements or determinations, and “ in this particular point of Law under the prefent ftate of the Province “ the Board are delirous that the faid Courts fhould be free in their “ ‘ Judgments, without any apprehenlion of cenfure from the Board. It “ is therefore further—
      “ Refolved, that the Subject-Matter of this Memorial is not proper “ for the determination of this Board, nor is it in the power of the Board “ to afford relief in the way and manner pray’d for, but the Board recommend it to the Juftices of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas for “ the County of Suffolk to determine the aforefaid Point of Law as foon as may be, and to the other Courts within the Province to determine it at or before their reftective Terms.
      " A true Copy. Att. Jn°. Cotton, D Secry.’
      " Upon a Motion made and feconded — the Queftion was put. Viz*. — Whether the Town apprehend the above Refolves of Council in confequence of their Memorial to His Excellency in Council to be “fatisfactory— Palled in the Negative unanimoufly.”
      " Adjourned to Thurfday next 10 o’clock a.m.
      " Thurfday December 26th, 1765. Met according to Adjourn*.
      " The Town being acquainted by feveral Gentlemen prefent, that the Courts of Probate within this Province would be opened ; that the Sheriff of the County of Suffolk had ferved, and was ready to ferve all Writts brought to him, and that the Court of Common Pleas for faid County next in courfe to fit, would meet & proceed to Bufinefs ; and that Mr. Sheriff Greenleaff, and Mr. William Mollineux could give the Town further fatisfaction relative to thefe particulars —
      " It was therefore Voted, that Mr. Sheriff and Mr. Mollineux be defired to inform the’Town refpecting thefe Matters — Mr. Sheriff 
        “ accordingly declared that he had duly ferved all the Writts which had “ been given him for Service to this Day — and Mr. Mollineux that “having difcourfed the Judges of the Inferior Court, he had no reafon “ to doubt but that the aforefaid Court would at their next Term pro- “ ceed to Bufinefs as ufual.
      “ Upon a Motion made and feconded — Voted that when this Meeting be adjourned, it fhall be to Thurfday the 16th Day of January “ next.
      
      
        “ Thurfday the 16th of January 1766. Met according to Adjournment.
      “ Whereas the Inferior Court of Common Pleas for the County, “ together with the Court of Probate, is now open, and Bufinefs going “ on as ufual — Voted unanimoufly that the Reprefentatives of the Town “ be and hereby are Inftrufted to ufe their utmoft endeavours with the “ General Affembly at the prefent Seffion, that Meafures may be taken “ that Juftice be alfo duly Adminiftred in all the Countys throughout “ the Province, and that enquiry may be made into the Reafons why “ the Courts of Juftice in the Province has been in any Meafure “ obftructed.
      “ It is further Voted unanimoufly that the Reprefentatives be alfo “ Inftructed to ufe their Influence in the General Affembly that proper “ enquiry may be made into the behavior of any Perfon, or Perfons, “ who by their mifeonduft have either contributed toward the Difficultys we labour under refpefting the Stamp Act, or have bafely neglefted “ to ufe their upright and beft endeavors to relieve us from those Difficultys.
      “ Voted that the Thanks of the Town be, and hereby are given to “ the Honourable James Otis, Efq., the Moderator of this Meeting, for “ difpatching the Bufinefs thereof.
      “ Then the Meeting was diffolved.”
      Governor Bernard thus deferibes thefe occurrences in a letter to the Lords of Trade, dated January 18, 1766, for a copy of which with others we are indebted to the kindnefs of Hon. George Bancroft:
      
        Gov. Bernard to Lords of Trade, fan'y 18, 1766.
      -• “ They next began with the Courts of Juftice, & for that pur- “ pofe prefented a Memorial to the Governor and Council. This “ Memorial was confidered in a full Council of 15 ; & the prayer of it, “ that the Governor & Council would give orders that the Courts “ fhould be opened, was unanimoufly rejected. This refolution of the “ Council was reported at a Town Meeting the fame day & unanimoufly voted unfatisfactory. Neverthelefs means were found that the “ Courts of this County fhould be opened ; the Judges as I fuppofe, fub- “ mitting to the defpotifm of the people. It was then hoped that all “ things would be quiet; but no fuch thing: it was then infilled in this “ Town they fhould not be fatisfied with their own Courts being opened, “ unlefs all the Courts of the Province, who tho’ very much diffatisfied “ with the Stamp Aft, would not proceed in open defiance of an Aft of “ the Parliament, & a great part of the people were quite fatisfied with “ waiting until the fuccefs of the laft application to Parliament could be “ known. But Bofton mull govern the whole Province, & the Delinquency muft be rendered univerfal.”
      It will he remembered that Chief Juftice Hutchinfon had been alfo Judge of Probate for the County of Suffolk. Ante, p. 98. Having refufed to open the Court or to allow any bufinefs to proceed without ftamps, he confidered himfelf compelled either to refign or quit the country, and chofe the former alternative. 3 Hutch. Hill. Mafs. 142.
      On the 18th, the Houfe of Reprefentatives in reply to the Governor’s addrefs at the clofe of the laft feffion, prefented a meffage to his Excellency which was publifhed in the Maffachufetts Gazette of the 23rd, and which contains the following language :
      “ The Courts of Juftice muft be open—■ open immediately; and the “ Law, the great Rule of Right in every County in the Province exe- “ cuted — The flopping the Courfe of Juftice is a Grievance which this “ Houfe mull enquire into — Juftice muft be fully adminiftred through “ the Province, by which the fhocking Effects which your Excellency “ apprehended from the People’s non-compliance with the Stamp Act will be prevented.”
      And on the 24th, the Houfe, probably in confequence of the votes of the Town, paffed the following refolve :
      “ Refolved that the fhutting up of the Courts of Juftice in general “ in this Province, particularly the Superiour Court, has a manifeft “ Tendency to diffolve the Bonds of civil Society, is unjuftifiable upon “ the Principles of Law and Reafon, dangerous to his Majefty’s Crown “ and Dignity, and a very great Grievance to the Subject that re- “ quires immediate Redrefs ; and that therefore the Judges and Juftices, “ and all other publick Officers in this Province ought to proceed in the “ Difcharge of their feveral Functions as ufual.”
      This refolve was fent up for concurrence to the Council, where the proceedings are thus defcribed by Governor Bernard.
      
        Gov, Bernard to Lords of Trade, March 10, 1766.
      -“ The Council after a fhort Debate ordered it to lye on the Ta-íf ble; the Houfe fent up a Meffage to delire they would pals on it. The “ Council refumed the confideration of it, and it having been faid that “ it did not appear that the Judges would not proceed in Bufinefs at the “ ufuall Time, it was ordered that the Judges be defired to meet together, “ and after confideration to fignify to the Council whether they intended “ to proceed in Bufinefs at the ufual Time. The Judges accordingly “ met, and fignified to the Council by Letter that it was impoffible for “ them to determine abfolutely what they should do at fo diftant a Time “ (5 Weeks); but they were of Opinion that if the Circumftances of the “ Province were the fame at the Time of opening the Court as they “ were now, and the Lawyers should urge their proceeding, they should “find themfelves obliged to proceed. The Council voted this to be “ fatisfaftory and palled upon the Refolve by non-concurring it. The “ Houfe fent down for the Judges Letters, and voted that the Informa- “ tion was unfatisfactory, and fo the Matter ended. — In the firft Debate “ upon the Refolve, the Lieutenant Governour bore a principal Part. “ In the next Bofton Gazette came out a Letter figned Freeborn Arm- “ ftrong, containing virulent Abufe of the Lieutenant Governour, mif- “ reprefenting what he faid in the Council, and arraigning him upon the “ very Falfities of the Mifreprefentation. This was a Breach of Privi- “ ledge tending to overturn all Government by deftroying a main Pillar “ of it— Freedom of Debate in Councils of State. Upon this Princi- “ ple the Council were earneftly urged by myfelf and fome of the moft “ reputable of their own Body, to refent this in a Parliamentary Way. “ But it could not be obtained, — it was faid that, if they committed the “ Printers, they would be refcued by the Mob, — that if the Author was “ difcovered in Form, as he was known to be a Member of the Houfe “ (Mr. Otis) they should be involved in a Quarrel with the Houfe ; that “ this was not a Time to refent Indignities. So they contented them- “ felves with vindicating the Lieutenant Governour’s Character by a “ Publication of their own. Bofton Gazette, Jan’y 27 & Feb. 3.”
      This reply was alfo publifhed in the Maffachufetts Gazette of January 30th, as follows:
      “ Province of 1 “ Maffachufetts Bay. £
      IN COUNCIL Tuefday the 28th Day of January 1766.
      “ Sixteen Gentlemen of the Board being then prefent, who had been “ likewife prefent on Friday the 24th Inftant:
      “ A Paragraph in the Bofton Gazette of the 27*1 Inft. was read at “ the Board, containing a Refolve of the Honourable Houfe of Repre- “ fentatives of the 24th Inftant, reipefting the Ibutting up the Courts of “ Juftice in this Province and aflerting That ‘ The Refolves was the fame “ ‘ Day fent up to the Hon. Board for their Concurrence when the “ ‘ Hon. Thomas Hutchinfon, Kfq; Lieutenant Governor, and Chief Juftice of the Superiour Court, who, on this Occafion alfo fits as “ ‘ Prefident of the Council, a Place he has ufurped, after engroffing all “ ‘ the Places of Honor and Profit in the Province moved to give it the “ ‘ go-by, faying it was Impertinent, and beneath the Notice of the Hon. “ ‘ Board, or to that Effect.’
      “ Whereupon a Debate was had at the Board upon the faid Para- “ graph; and the following Queftions were thereupon put,
      “ Q.. 1. Whether any Gentlemen prefent at the Board on Friday “ laft heard the Lieutenant Governor exprefs himfelf in the Manner “ mentioned in the Bofton Gazette of Yefterday, viz. That the Refolve “ of the Houfe was impertinent, and beneath the Notice of the Hon. “ Board, or Words to that Effect ?
      “ It faffed unanimoufly in the Negative.
      
      
        “ 2. Whether the Words the Lieutenant Governor uttered in that “ Debate carried any Reflection on the Honorable Houfe of Reprefentatives ?
      “ It faffed unanimoufly in the Negative.
      
      
        “ 3. Whether his Honor the Lieutenant-Governor hath ufurped the Place of Prefident of the Board ?
      “ Refolved, That when his Honor firft took the Place of Prefident “ of the Board, it was determined by the Refolution of the Board at that “ Time, after fearching the Books for Precedents in the like Cafes: “ And it was declared by fome Gentlemen who were then prefent, that “ the Motion was made, and the Queftion determined by the Board, the “ Lieutenant-Governor himself being altogether filent on the Occafion.
      “ THE foregoing is a true Copy, and publifhed by Order of the Board.
      
      
        “ Atteft. A. Oliver, Secr’y.”
    
   MR. ADAMS. Innumerable are the Calamities which flow from an Interruption of Justice. Necessity requires that the Doors of Justice should ever be open to hear the Complaints of the Injured and Oppressed.

The Stamp-Act, I take it, is utterly void, and of no binding Force upon us; for it is against our Rights as Men, and our Priviledges as Englishmen, An Act made in Defiance of the first Principles of Justice; an Act which rips up the Foundation of the British Constitution, and makes void Maxims of 1800 Years standing.

Parliaments may err; they are not infallible; they have been refused to be submitted to. An Act making the King’s Proclamation to be Law, the Executive Power adjudged absolutely void.

The Stamp-Act was made where we are in no Sense represented, therefore no more binding upon us, than an Act which should oblige us to destroy One Half of our Species.

There are certain Principles fixed unalterably in Nature. Convention and Compact are the Requisites to make any Law obligatory. That the Subject is not bound by Acts, when he is not represented, is a found Maxim of the Law, and not peculiar to the British Constitution, but a Maxim of the antient Roman Law: “ What concerns All thall be judged of by All.”

The only Reason of the Power of the Parliament in England is, because they are elected by the People, who, if their Liberties are infringed, have a Check at the next Election. Have Americans any such Check? Have they any Voice in Deputation? A Parliament of Great Britain can have no more Right to tax the Colonies than a Parliament of Paris.

This Act has never been received from Authority, therefore in a legal Sense we know Nothing of it.

The Necessities of Business, the Cries of the People, call aloud for Justice. It has become impossible to execute this Act, therefore, if it were binding, we are excused by every Law, human or divine, from a Compliance with it. Wood’s Inst. The King’s Writs are ex debitâ Fustitiâ, and cannot be denied the Subject. And in Magna Charta, it is laid, we deny no Man Justice, we delay no Man Justice. 2 Inst. ch. 29, p. 56. ( )

Mr. Otis (opened with Tears).

It is with great Grief that I appear before your Excellency and Honours on this Occasion. A wicked and unfeeling Minister has caused a People, the most loyal and affectionate that ever King was blessed with, to groan under the most insupportable Oppression. But I think, Sir, that he now stands upon the Brink of inevitable Destruction; and trail that soon — very soon, he will feel the full Weight of his injured Sovereign’s righteous Indignation. I have no doubt, Sir, but that the loyal and dutiful Representations of nine Provinces, the Cries and Supplications of a distressed People, the united Voice of all of His Majesty’s most loyal and affectionate British-American Subjects, will obtain all that ample Redress they have a Right to expect; and that e’er long, they will fee their cruel and insidious Enemies, both at Home and abroad, put to Shame and Confusion.

My Brother Adams has entered so largely into the Validity of the Act, that I shall not enlarge on that Head. Indeed, what has been observed is sufficient to convince the most illiterate Savage that the Parliament of England had no Regard to the very first Principles of their own Liberties.

Only the Preamble of that oppressive Act is enough to rouse the Blood of every generous Briton. — “ We your Majesty’s Subjects, the Commons of Great Britain, &c., do Give and Grant ” — What? Their own Property? No! The Treasure, the Heart’s Blood of all your Majesty’s dutiful and affectionate British-American Subjects.

But the Time is far spent — I will not tire your Patience. It was once a fundamental Maxim, that every Subject had the fame Right to his Life, Liberty, Property and the Law, that the King had to his Crown; and ’tis yet, I venture to say, as much as a Crown is worth, to deny the Subject his Law, which is his Birth-right. ’Tis a first Principle, “ that Majesty should not only shine in Arms, but be armed with the Laws.” The Administration of Justice is necessary to the very Existence of Governments. Nothing can warrant the stopping the Course of Justice, but the impossibility of holding Courts, by Reason of War, Invasion, Rebellion or Insurrections. 1 Inst. 249, a & b. This was Law at a Time when the whole Island of Great Britain was divided into an infinite Number of petty Baronies and Principalities; as Germany is, at this Day. Insurrections then, and even Invasions, put the whole Nation into such Confusion, that Justice could not have her equal Course; especially as the Kings in antient Times frequently fat as Judges. But War has now become so much of a Science, and gives fo little Disturbance to a Nation engaged, that no War, foreign or domestic, is a sufficient Reason for shutting up the Courts. But, if it were, we are not in such a State, but far otherwise; the whole People being willing and demanding the full Administration of Government. Vid. Bracton, 240.

The shutting up of the Courts is an Abdication, a total Dissolution of Government. Pollexfen’s Argument at the Revolution Conference, Rapin’s History, 790. Jones, 773, 774. Whoever takes from the King his executive Power, takes from the King his Kingship. Vid. the Speeches of Holt, Somers, Nottingham and other Lords. Rapin, 790. Vid, Bracton, 107.

“ The Laws which forbid a Man to pursue his Right one Way, ought to be understood with this equitable Restriction, that one finds Judges to whom he may apply. When there are no Courts of Law to appeal to, it is then we must have Recourse to the Law of Nature,” &c. Hugo Grotius, de Jure B. & P. Lib. 1, C. 3, § 2. Lib. 2, C. 4, § 9. C. 7, § 2, n. 2. C. 20, § 2, p. 4 & 5, with Mr. Barbeyrac’s Notes. Code, Lib. 1, Tit. 9, De Jud. & Cæl.

I can’t but observe that cruel and unheard of Neglect of that Enemy to his King and Country, the Author of this Act, that, when all Business, the very Life and Being of a commercial State, was to be carried on by the Use of Stamps, that wicked and execrable Minister never paid the lead; Regard to the Miseries of this extensive Continent, but suffered the Time for the taking Place of the Act to elapse, Months before a single Stamp was received. Though this was a high Piece of Infidelity to the Interest of his royal Master, yet it makes it evident that it could never be intended, that if Stamps were not to be had, it should put a Stop to all Justice; which is ipso Facto a Dissolution of Society.

It is a strange Kind of Law, which we hear advanced now-a-days, that, because one unpopular Act can’t be carried into Execution, that therefore there shall be an End of all Law. We are not the first People who have risen to prevent the Execution of a Law; the very People of England themselves rose in Opposition to the famous Jew-Bill, and got that immediately repealed. And Lawyers know that there are Limits, beyond which if Parliaments go, their Acts bind not. 4 Inst. 122.

The King is always presumed to be present in his Courts, holding out the Law to his Subjects; and when he shuts his Courts, he unkings himself in the most essential Point. 18 E. 3, ch. 1. 1 H. 4. 20 E. 3, ch. 2. 4 H. 4, ch. 1. Vattel, p. 20. And Magna Charta, and the other Statutes are full, “ That they will not defer, delay or deny to any Man Justice or Right.” “ That it shall not be commanded by the Great Seal, or in any other Way to disturb or delay Common Right.” The Judges of England are “ not to counsel, or assent to any Thing which may turn to the Damage or Disherison of the Crown.” They are sworn not to deny to any Man Common Right, by the King’s Letters, nor none other Man’s, nor for none other Cause. Is not the Dissolution of Society a Disherison of the Crown? The “ Justices are commanded, that they shall do even Law and Execution of Right to all our Subjects, rich and poor, without haying Regard to any Person, without letting to do Right for any Letters or Commandment which may come to them from Us, or from any other, or by any other Cause.” 4 Inst. 70.

His Excellency the Governour.

The Arguments made Use of, both by Mr. Adams and you, would be very pertinent to induce the Judges of the Superiour Court to think the Act of no Validity, and that therefore they should pay no Regard to it; but the Question with me is, whether that very Thing don’t argue the Impropriety of our Intermeddling in a Matter which solely belongs to them to judge of in their Judicial Department. And can it be proper for us to command them to act in any particular Way, relative to a Matter which is to come before them in their Judicial Capacity? especially, as from some of the very Authorities you have cited, it appears, that the Judges are to obey no Mandate, come it from whomsoever it will.

Mr. Otis.

Those Mandates spoken of in the Authorities, are such as are made to delay Justice, and command the Judges not to proceed. That very Thing, I take it, shews that Juftice is never to be stopped, but that the Law shall always have its own Course. And surely your Excellency must see a great Difference between a Command in Delay of Justice, and one made in its Furtherance. There is certainly a very wide Distinction to be made, between saying, Justice Shall stop, and a Command or Recommendation to the Judges, to proceed in the several Courts of Judicature, according to the Laws and Customs of the Country.

Mr. Gridley.

The Question now before your Excellency and Honours, is of great Consequence, of very great Weight. The Safety of the whole People, the Preservation of all Government is in Issue. All Laws are divided into public and private, criminal and civil. The Criminal Law is as free as ever; for the Act excepts Criminal Matters.

The Benignity of the Law says, if the Intention of the Party cannot operate one Way, it shall another. ’Tis so in all private Tranfactions: — How much more so in Things of a publick Nature! Though the criminal Law is free, yet there is such an intimate Connection between this and private Law, that the one cannot subsist without the other. Deprive me of the one, and ’tis worfe than if you deprived me of both. My Property is invaded, but the Invader is no Criminal Where then is my Remedy? He, who deprives me of my Remedy, deprives me of my Right. What shall be done? To shut up the Courts is a Renuntiation of Government. What! shall I live in a Society, and yet have no Redress of my Wrongs? Shall I have no Remedy against him who has broken his most solemn Contracts and Engagements? Shall I bear the Insults of Insolence, and have no Recompence for my Damage and Sufferings as a private Individual? I have an Estate, but I have no Security. — Pursue the Thought, and it is dreadfull. Hunger will break through a Stone Wall. Disputes, Animosities, Wrangles, Disaffections, Hatreds, Heart-burnings, Tumults, Consusions, — ’tis easy for the Imagination to trace the infinite Miseries which rush in upon us like an Inundation; — no Need to pursue it further.

What was the Law instituted for? For the Protection of my Person and Estate. Government is subverted if the Law is not open. ’Tis absurd to suppose that Society can take away from me my Right of Self-preservation as a Man, and not protect my Property as a Citizen. The People must return to a State of Nature. And I had much rather be a Barbarian of the Woods, than live in a State once under Government, but now reduced to Anarchy and Confusion. The Knowledge obtained in Society has only fitted them to execute their Perpetrations with more Dexterity, and rendered their Plots the more terrible.

But let me put the Case, that all the Stamp-Papers had been destroyed by Tempest, or some other Casualty: The Courts in such a Case must have proceeded. There is now as much an Impossibility to use those Papers, as though they were all in the Bottom of the Ocean.

There is not a Syllable in the Act which has the least Aspect, that Courts should stop, if Stamps were not to be obtained. A Mulct is the Punishment for Non-user, —which shows that if a Person will submit to that, the End of the Act is complied with : But Impossibility in such Cafe would assuredly excuse : That the Law never requires Impossibilities is a Maxim of the Law.

Necessity demands Justice should have its Course. It is no Laches, no Default of ours, that the Act cannot be put in Force. The Innocent shall never be involved in the same Fate with the Guilty if it can be avoided. It is not in the Power of any one to obtain a Stamp-Paper. A Thing that is impossible is as though it were not. He who is a Citizen shall never be denied his Law., () 
      
      (1) See John Adams’s Diary, December to, 1765. “ I grounded my argument on the invalidity of the Stamp-Aft, it not being in any fenfe our aft, having never confented to it. But left that foundation ihould not be fufficient, on the prefent neceffity to prevent a failure of juftice', and the prefent impoffibility of carrying that aft into execution..
      Mr. Otis reafoned with great learning and zeal on the judges ■ oaths, &c.
      Mr. Gridley, on the great inconveniences that would enfue the interruption of juftice.” 2 John Adams’s Works, 15,8, 9.
     