JAMES OTIS
1725-1783
In New England, in the eighteenth century, before the Revolution, there was a class of wealthy and imposing gentlemen who possessed the education, the manners and the traditions as the same class in England... They were frank and free in bearing... and splendid in attire.
Many of this class, when hostilities broke out, frowned upon the cause of their fellow-colonists, and gave in their adherence to King George. They were the Tories of the war; and were soundly hated by their fellows of the patriot stamp, and vehemently hated them in their turn.
At this distance of time (1760-1900), it is easy to condone their attitude, and to respect the constancy with which they faced obloquy for the sake of loyalty. But we do not love them; and the English failed to manifest any gratitude for their services. Treason to one's country is not rewarded even by those who profit by it.
Among these fine gentlemen of colonial days was James Otis of Boston. He was born in the neighboring town of Barnstable in 1725, and died just at the end of the war, in 1783. But Otis, so far from being a Tory, was one of the fathers of independence; none of the outspoken patriots antedated him; from the very first premonitions of trouble, he stepped to the front, and spoke his opinions in no uncertain words. And for the exercise of the forum, he was well fitted, both by nature and education.
He had the gift of oratory; and his mind had been trained and refined by a thorough liberal education.
He knew the classics: history was at his fingers' ends, and an accurate memory gave him command over statistics. He was, in short, a gentleman of birth, breeding, and culture, who cared more for human rights, and the honor of his country, than for anything personal to himself; and who was ready, therefore, to pledge not his life and his sacred honor only, but his fortune into the bargain, to the obtainment of liberty and independence.
This is the kind of fine gentlemen to whom we have no objection in this democratic country; and Otis, a hundred years ago, was not only tolerated by the grim company of patriots, but was esteemed one of the most honorable of them, and was listened to and followed with tumultuous enthusiasm.
He was eloquent in the full sense of the word, as the testimony of his contemporaries fully indicates; and...permitting the imagination a little play, we may construct the scene, and believe in the oratory.
One of his best speeches was that delivered in 1761 against the writs of Assistance; a longer and more elaborate effort was spoken in Boston on the subject of taxation without representation. It is worth reading as an eloquent and convincing statement of the case for the colonies, as against the arguments of the English Lord Mansfield.
------
For your convenience, here it is! Hallelujah!
-----
ON THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE
by James Otis
Delivered before the
Superior Court of Massachusetts,
during the term held at Boston in
February 1761
---
MAY it Please Your Honors:
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 on 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 law-book. 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 Briton, 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 take again, 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' 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 will, I 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 many sentiments, in private life, make the good citizens; 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 mean time, 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, 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 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 the 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 his writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will and command all to assist him.
Fourthly, by this writ, not only deputies, etc., 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 creation?
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 whilst 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 of revenge, no man, no court can inquire.
Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.
This wanton exercise of this power is not a 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 custom-house 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-humour, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house, may get a writ of assistance.
Others will ask it from self-defence; one arbitrary exertion will provoke another, until society be involved in tumult and in blood.
------------
WORLD'S GREATEST LITERATURE, AMERICAN ORATIONS, VOL. I, pages 20-24.
*Yet Jesus said that nations are as a drop in the bucket to Him.
**Americademy has broken long paragraphs, reserving the indentation to show original breaks.
-----
JAMES OTIS
On Writs of Assistance
Delivered at the State House in Philadelphia,
August 1, 1776
---
COUNTRYMEN AND BRETHREN: I would gladly have declined an honor, to which I find myself unequal. I have not the calmness and impartiality which the infinite importance of this occasion demands.
I will not deny the charge of my enemies, that resentment for the accumulated injuries of our country, and an ardor for her glory, rising to enthusiasm, may deprive me of that accuracy of judgment and expression which men of cooler passions may possess. Let me beseech you, then, to hear me with caution, to examine without prejudice and to correct the mistakes into which I may be hurried by my zeal.
Truth loves an appeal to the common-sense of mankind. Your unperverted understandings can best determine on subjects of a practical nature.
The positions and plans which are said to be above the comprehension of the multitude may be always suspected to be visionary and fruitless. He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all.:)
Our forefathers threw off the yoke of popery in religion; for you is reserved the honor of leveling the popery of politics. They opened the BIBLE to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion.
Are we sufficient for the comprehension of the sublimest spiritual truths, and unequal to material and temporal ones?
Heaven hath trusted us with the management of things for eternity, and man denies us ability to judge of the present, or to know from our feelings the experience that will make us happy.
"You can discern," say they, "objects distant and remote, but cannot perceive those within your grasp. Let us have the distribution of present goods, and cut out and manage as you please the interests of futurity."
This day, I trust the reign of political protestantism will commence. We have explored the temple of royalty, and found that the idol we had bowed down to, has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone.
We have this day restored the Sovereign, to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds His subjects assuming that freedom of thought, and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come. (Americademy says, "Amen!")
Having been a slave to the influence of opinions early acquired, and distinctions generally received, I am ever inclined not to despise but pity those who are yet in darkness.
But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear, than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body.
But what mysterious distribution of character has the craft of statesmen, more fatal than priestcraft, introduced?
According to their doctrine, the offspring of perhaps the lewd embraces of a successful invader, shall, from generation to generation, arrogate the right of lavishing on their pleasures a proportion of the fruits of the earth, more than sufficient to supply the wants of thousands of their fellow-creatures; claim authority to manage them like beasts of burden, and without superior industry, capacity, or virtue, nay, though disgraceful to humanity by their ignorance, intemperance, and brutality, shall be deemed best calculated to frame laws, and to consult for the welfare of society.
Were the talents and virtues, which Heaven has bestowed on men, given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?
Away then, with those absurd systems, which, to gratify the pride of a few, debase the greatest part of our species below the order of men! What an affront to the King of the universe, to maintain that the happiness of a monster, sunk in debauchery and spreading desolation and murder among men, of a Caligula, a Nero, or a Charles, is more precious in His sight than that of millions of His suppliant creatures, who do Justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God!
No! In the judgment of Heaven, that is no other superiority among men, than a superiority in wisdom and virtue. And can we have a safer model in forming ours? The Diety then has not given any order or family of men authority over others, and if any men have given it, they only could give it for themselves.
Our forefathers, 'tis said, consented to be subject to the laws of Great Britain. I will not, at present, dispute it, nor mark out the limits and conditions of their submission; but will it be denied that they contracted to pay obedience, and to be under the control of Great Britain, because it appeared to them most beneficial in their then present circumstances, and situations?
We, my countrymen, have the same right to consult and provide for our happiness, which they had to promote theirs. If they had a view to posterity in their contracts, it must have been to advance the felicity of their descendants. If they erred in their expectations and prospects, we can never be condemned for a conduct which they would have recommended had they foreseen our present condition.
Ye darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives, and religion of millions, depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters, of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honest industry, the fruits of those fields, which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check?
Did they contract for us that, with folded arms, we should expect that justice and mercy from brutal and inflamed invaders which have been denied to our supplications at the foot of the throne?
Were we to hear our character as a people ridiculed with indifference?
Did they promise for us that our meekness and patience should be insulted; our coasts harassed; our towns demolished and plundered, and our wives and offspring exposed to nakedness, hunger and death, without our feeling the resentment of men, and exerting those powers of self-preservation which God has given us?
No man had once a greater veneration for Englishmen than I entertained. They were dear to me as branches of the same parental trunk, and partakers of the same religion and laws; I still view with respect the remains of the constitution as I would a lifeless body which had once been animated by a great and heroic soul.
But when I am roused by the din of arms; when I behold legions of foreign assassins, paid by Englishmen to imbrue their hands in our blood; when I tread over the uncoffined bones of my countrymen, neighbors and friends; when I see the locks of a venerable father torn by savage hands, and a feeble mother, clasping her infants to her bosom, and on her knees imploring their lives from her own slaves, whom Englishmen have allured to treachery and murder; when I behold my country, once the seat of industry, peace, and plenty, changed by Englishmen to a theatre of blood and misery; Heaven forgive me, if I cannot root out those passions which it has implanted in my bosom, and detest submission to a people who have either ceased to be human, or have not virtue enough to feel their own wretchedness and servitude.
Men who content themselves with the semblance of truth, and a display of words, talk much of our obligations to Great Britain for protection! Had she a single eye to our advantage? A nation of shopkeepers are very seldom so disinterested.
Let us not be so amused with words; the extension of her commerce was her object. When she defended our coasts, she fought for her customers, and convoyed our ships loaded with wealth, which we had acquired for her by our industry.
She has treated us as beasts of burden, whom the lordly masters cherish that they may carry a greater load.
Let us inquire also against whom she has protected us? Against her own enemies with whom we had no quarrel, or only on her account, and against whom we always readily exerted our wealth and strength when they were required.
Were these colonies backward in giving assistance to Great Britain, when they were called upon in 1739, to aid the expedition against Carthagena? They at that time sent three thousand men to join the British army, although the war was commenced without their consent.
But the last war, 'tis said, was purely American. This is a vulgar error, which, like many others, has gained credit by being confidently repeated. The dispute between the Courts of Great Britain and France related to the limits of Canada and Nova Scotia. The controverted territory was not claimed by any in the colonies, but by the Crown of Great Britain. It was therefore their own quarrel.
The infringement of a right which England had, by the treaty of Utrecht, of trading in the Indian country of Ohio, was another cause of the war. The French seized large quantities of British manufactures, and took possession of a fort which a company of British merchants and factors had erected for the security of their commerce.
The war was therefore waged in defense of lands claimed by the Crown, and for the protection of British property.
The French at that time had no quarrel with America; and, as appears by letters sent from their commander-in-chief, to some of the colonies, wished to remain in peace with us.
The part therefore which we then took, and the miseries to which we exposed ourselves, ought to be charged to our affection for Britain.
These colonies granted more than their proportion to the support of the war. They raised, clothed, and maintained, nearly twenty-five thousand men, and so sensible were the people of England of our great exertions, that a message was annually sent to the House of Commons purporting:
That His Majesty, being highly satisfied of the zeal and vigor with which his faithful subjects in North America had exerted themselves in defence of His Majesty's just rights and possession, recommended it to the House, to take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper compensation.
But what purpose can arguments of this kind answer? Did the protection we received annul our rights as men, and lay us under an obligation of being miserable?
Who among you my countrymen, that is a father, would claim authority to make your child a slave because you had nourished him in his infancy?
It is a strange species of generosity which requires a return infinitely more valuable than anything it could have bestowed; that demands as a reward for a defence of our property, a surrender of those inestimable privileges, to the arbitrary will of vindictive tyrants, which alone give value to that very property.
Political right and public happiness are different words for the same idea. They who wander into metaphysical labyrinths, or have recourse to original contracts, to determine the rights of men, either impose on themselves or mean to delude others.
Public utility is the only certain criterion. It is a test which brings disputes to a speedy decision, and makes its appeal to the feelings of mankind. The force of truth has obliged men to use arguments drawn from this principle who are combating it, in practice and speculation.
The advocates for a despotic government, and non-resistance to the magistrate, employ reasons in favor of their systems drawn from a consideration of their tendency to promote public happiness.
The Author of Nature directs all His operations to the production of the greatest good, and has made human virtue to consist in a disposition and conduct which tend to the common felicity of His creatures. An abridgement of the natural freedom of man, by the institution of political societies, is vindicable only on this foot.
How absurd, then, is it to draw arguments from the nature of civil society for the annihilation of those very ends which society was intended to procure.
Men associate for their mutual advantage. Hence the good and happiness of the members, that is, the majority of the members of any state, is the great standard by which everything relating to that state must finally be determined; and though it may be supposed that a body of people may be bound by a voluntary resignation (which they have been so infatuated as to make) of all their interests to a single person, or to a few, it can never be conceived that the resignation is obligatory to their posterity; because it is manifestly contrary to the good of the whole that it should be so.
These are the sentiments of the wisest and most virtuous champions of freedom. Attend to a portion on this subject from a book in our defence, written, I had almost said by the pen of inspiration.
"I lay no stress," says he, "on charters--they derive their rights from a higher source.
It is inconsistent with common-sense to imagine that any people would ever think of settling in a distant country, on any such condition, or that the people from whom they withdrew should forever be masters of their property, and have power to subject them to any modes of government they pleased.
And had there been express stipulations to this purpose in all the charters of the colonies, they would, in my opinion, be no more bound by them than if it had been stipulated with them that they should go naked, or expose themselves to the incursions of wolves and tigers.
Such are the opinions of every virtuous and enlightened patriot in Great Britain.
Their petition to Heaven is--"That there may be one free country left upon earth, to which they may fly, when venality, luxury, and vice shall have completed the ruin of liberty (elsewhere.)"
---
Courage, then, my countrymen! Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth, for civil and religious liberty? Dismissing therefore the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances?
The doctrine of dependence on Great Britain is, I believe, generally exploded; but as I would attend to the honest weakness of the simplest of men, you will pardon me if I offer a few words on that subject.
We are now on this continent, to the astonishment of the world, three millions of souls united in one common cause. We have large armies, well disciplined and appointed, with commanders inferior to none in military skill, and superior in activity and zeal. We are furnished with arsenals and stores beyond our most sanguine expectations, and foreign nations are waiting to crown our success by their alliances. There are instances of, I would say, an almost astonishing Providence in our favor; our success has staggered our enemies, and almost given faith to infidels; so that we may truly say it is not our own arm which has saved us.
The hand of heaven appears to have led us on to be, perhaps, humble instruments and means in the great providential dispensation which is completing. We have fled from the political Sodom; let us not look back, lest we perish and become a monument of infamy and derision to the world!
For can we ever expect more unanimity and a better preparation for defence; more infatuation of counsel among our enemies, and more valor and zeal among ourselves? The same force and resistance which are sufficient to procure us our liberties will secure us a glorious independence and support us in the dignity of free, imperial States.
We cannot suppose that our opposition has made a corrupt and dissipated nation more friendly to America, or created in them a greater respect for the rights of mankind. We can therefore expect a restoration and establishment of our privileges, and a compensation for the injuries we have received from their want of power, from their fears, and not from their virtues. The unanimity and valor, which will effect an honorable peace, can render a future contest for our liberties unnecessary.
He who has strength to chain down the wolf is a madman if he lets him loose without drawing his teeth and paring his nails!
From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. A politic minister will study to lull us into security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding.
In a state of tranquility, wealth and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible.
Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our assistance formidable.
When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny.
Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us!---remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?'
Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth?
If we love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom---go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
To unite the supremacy of Great Britain and the liberty of America, is utterly impossible.
So vast a continent and of such a distance from the seat of empire will every day grown more unmanageable. The motion of so unwieldy a body cannot be directed with any dispatch and uniformity, without committing to the Parliament of Great Britain powers inconsistent with our freedom.
The authority and force which would be absolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order of this continent would put all our valuable rights within the reach of that nation.
As the administration of government requires firmer and more numerous supports in proportion to its extent, the burdens imposed on us would be excessive, and we should have the melancholy prospect of their increasing on our posterity.
The scale of officers, from the rapacious and needy commissioner, to the haughty governor, and from the governor with his hungry train, to perhaps a licentious and prodigal viceroy, must be upheld by you and your children.
The fleets and armies which will be employed to silence your murmurs and complaints must be supported by the fruits of your industry. (sic)
And yet, with all this enlargement of the expense and powers of government, the administration of it at such a distance, and over so extensive a territory, must necessarily fail of putting the laws into vigorous execution, removing private oppressions, and forming plans for the advancement of agriculture and commerce, and preserving the vast empire in any tolerable peace and security.
If our posterity retain any spark of patriotism, they can never tamely submit to such burdens. This country will be made the field of bloody contention till it gains that independence for which nature formed it!
It is therefore injustice and cruelty to our offspring, and would stamp us with the character of baseness and cowardice, to leave the salvation of this country to be worked out by them with accumulated difficulty and danger.
Prejudice, I confess, may warp our judgments. Let us hear the decision of Englishmen on this subject, who cannot be suspected of partiality:
The Americans," say they, "are but little short of half our numbers. To this number they have grown from a small body of original settlers by a very rapid increase. The probability is that they will go on to increase, and that in fifty or sixty years they will be double our number; and form a mighty empire, consisting of a variety of States, all equal or superior to ourselves in all the arts and accomplishments which give dignity and happiness to human life. In that period will they be still bound to acknowledge that supremacy over them which we now claim? Can there be any person who will assert this, or whose mind does not revolt at the idea of a vast continent, holding all that is valuable to it, at the discretion of a handful of people on the other side the Atlantic?
But if at that period this would be unreasonable, what makes it otherwise now? Draw the line if you can. But there is s till a greater difficulty.
Britain is now, I will suppose, the seat of liberty and virtue, and its legislature consists of a body of able and independent men, who govern with wisdom and justice. The time may come when all will be reversed; when its excellent constitution of government will be subverted; when pressed by debts and taxes, it will be greedy to draw to itself an increase of revenue from every distant province, in order to ease its own burdens; when the influence of the Crown, strengthened by luxury and an universal profligacy of manners, will have tainted every heart, broken down every fence of liberty, and rendered us a nation of tame and contented vassals; when a general election will be nothing but a general auction of boroughs, and when the Parliament, the grand council of the nation, and once the faithful guardian of the state, and a terror to evil ministers, will be degenerated into a body of sycophants, dependent and venal, always ready to confirm any measures, and little more than a public court for registering royal edicts.
Such, it is possible, may, some time or other, be the state of Great Britain.
What will at that period be the duty of the colonies? Will they be still bound to unconditional submission? Must they always continue an appendage of our Government, and follow it implicitly through every change that can happen to it? Wretched condition indeed, of millions of freemen as good as ourselves! Will you say that we now govern equitably, and that there is no danger of such revolution?
Would to God that this were true!
But will you not always say the same? Who shall judge whether we govern equitably or not? Can you give the colonies any security that such a period will never come?
No!
The period, countrymen, is already come. The calamities were at our door. The rod of oppression was raised over us. We were roused from our slumbers, and may we never sink into repose until we can convey a clear and undisputed inheritance to our posterity.
This day we are called upon to give a glorious example of what the wisest and best of men were rejoiced to view, only in speculation. This day presents the world with the most august spectacle that its annals ever unfolded, millions of freemen deliberately and voluntarily forming themselves into a society for their common defence and common happiness.
Immortal spirits of Hampden, Locke, and Sidney! will it not add to your benevolent joys to behold your posterity rising to the dignity of men, and defining to the world the reality and expediency of your systems, and in the actual enjoyments of that equal liberty, which you were happy, when on earth, in delineating and recommending to mankind!
---
Other nations have received their laws from conquerors; some are indebted for a constitution to the sufferings of their ancestors through revolving centuries.
The people of this country, alone, have formally and deliberately chosen a Government for themselves, and with open and uninfluenced consent, bound themselves into a social compact. Here, no man proclaims his birth or wealth as a title to honorable distinction, or to sanctify ignorance and vice with the name of hereditary authority.
He who has most zeal and ability to promote public felicity, let him be the servant of the public. This is the only line of distinction drawn by nature. Leave the bird of night to the obscurity for which nature intended him, and expect only from the eagle to brush the clouds with his wings, and look boldly in the face of the sun.
---
------------
WORLD'S GREATEST LITERATURE, AMERICAN ORATIONS, VOL. I, pages 20-24; 45-53(?). Editors: LIBRARY COMMITTEE, Justin McCarthy, M. R..., Historian and Journalist; Timothy Dwight, D. D.., LL.D. Ex-President, Yale University; Richard Henry Stoddard, Author and Critic; Paul Van Dyke, D. D.., Princeton University; Albert Ellery Bergh, Managing Editor; ADVISORY COMMITTEE, John T. Morgan, United States Senate; Frederick R. Coudert, LL.D., New York Bar; Edward Everett Hale, Author and Editor; Maurice Francis Egan, LL.D., Catholic University of America; and Julian Hawthorne, Literary Editor. 1900 by the COLONIAL PRESS, P. F. COLLIER & SON, New York