JAMES OTIS: Against Writs of Assistance
Acts and the Writs of Assistance that accompanied them empowered customs officers
with general search privileges, and resulted in a series of court cases,
the most famous of which was tried in February 1761. In the following speech,
James Otis, a Massachusetts lawyer, argued before the Superior Court of Massachusetts
that the writs were unconstitutional. This "master of the laws of nature and
nations," as John Adams called him, based his case on the theory of political
and social rights that be found in English common law. His open opposition to
the power of Parliament marked the beginning of Otis's prominence as a popular
agitator against the Crown.
I WAS DESIRED by one of the Court to look into the books and consider the question now before them concerning "Writs of Assistance." I have accordingly considered it, and now appear not only in obedience to your order but likewise in behalf of the. inhabitants of this town who have presented another petition, and out of regard to the liberties of the subject. And I take this opportunity to declare that whether under a fee or not (for in such a cause as this I despise a fee), I will to my dying day oppose with all the powers and faculties God has given me all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is.
It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English lawbook. I must therefore beg Your Honors' patience and attention to the whole range of an argument that may 'perhaps appear uncommon In many things, as well as to points of learning that are more remote and unusual, that the whole tendency of my design may the more easily be perceived, the conclusions better descend. and the force of them be better felt, I shall not think much of my pains in this cause. as I engaged in it from principle.
I was solicited to argue this cause as advocate general, and because I would not, I have been charged with desertion from my office. To this charge I can give a very sufficient answer. I renounced that office, and I argue this cause from the same principle; and I argue it 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 Britain, 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, the exercise of which, in former periods of. history, cost one king of England his head and another his throne. I have taken more pains in this cause than I ever will although my engaging in this and another popular cause has raised much resentment. But I think I can sincerely declare that I cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience's sake, and from my soul I despise all those whose guilt, malice, or folly has made them my foes. Let the consequences be what they am determined to proceed. The only principles of public conduct that are worthy of a gentleman or a man are to sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of his country.
These manly sentiments in private life make the good citizen; in public life, the patriot and the hero. I do not say that when brought to the test I shall be invincible, I pray God I may never be brought to the melancholy trial, but if ever I should, it will be then known how far I can reduce to practice principles which I know to be founded in truth. In the meantime I will proceed to the subject of this writ.
Your Honors will find in the old books concerning the office of a justice of the peace precedents of general warrants to search suspected houses. But in more modern books you will find only special warrants to search such and such houses, specially named, in which the complainant has before sworn that he suspects his goods are concealed, and will find it adjudged that special warrants only are legal. In the same manner, I rely on it that the writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special writs of assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath; but I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted, for I beg leave to make some observations on the writ itself before I proceed to other acts of Parliament.
In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed "to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects"; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the King's dominions. Everyone, with this writ, may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder anyone within the Realm. In the next place, it is perpetual, there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings, Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses or shops, at will, and command all to assist him. Fourth, by this writ, not only deputies but even their menial servants are allowed to lord it over us. What is this but to have the curse of Canaan with a witness on us; to be the servant of servants, the most despicable of God's creations
Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and while he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Customhouse officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants 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.
This wanton exercise of this power is not chimerical suggestion of a heated brain. I will mention some facts. Mr. Pew had one of these writs, and when Mr. Ware succeeded him, he endorsed this writ over to Mr. Ware, so that these writs are negotiable from one officer to another; and so Your Honors have no opportunity of judging the persons to whom this vast power is delegated. Another instance is this: Mr. Justice Walley had called this same Mr. Ware before him, by a Constable, to answer for a breach of the Sabbath-Day acts, or that of profane swearing. As soon as he had finished, Mr. Ware asked him if he had done. He replied, "Yes." "Well, then," said Mr. Ware, "I will, show you a little of my power, I command you to permit me to search your house for uncustomed goods"; and went on to search the house from the garret to the cellar; and then served the constable in the same manner!
But to show another absurdity in this writ, if it should be established, I insist upon it every person-by the 14th Charles II-has this power as well as the customhouse officers. The words are, "It shall be lawful for any person or persons authorized. What a scene does this open! Every man prompted by revenge, Ill humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house, may get a writ of assistance. Others will ask it from self-defense; one arbitrary exertion will provoke another, until society be involved in tumult and in blood.