Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/210

 178 Defence of the writs. [i?6i they inspect and oversee and search for the said goods, wares and merchandise : and that they, from time to time, be aiding, assisting and helping the revenue officers in the execution of the process. The process (which was against goods alone ; it did not authorise arrest of men) ran through the particular reign in which it was granted, and for six months afterwards. Writs of the kind had been granted by Crown judges or governors before in Massachusetts, as the statement above made, that the applica- tion was for a renewal of process, implies ; but former applications had not created excitement. Still the use made, or to be made, of the writs had not passed unnoticed; and now that, at the outset of the reign of George III, the old writs were about to expire, and new ones were asked for, to run of course indefinitely in time, the whole situation was at once changed. The public was aroused; it seemed indeed as if all the people of Massachusetts had become parties to the cause The merchants of Boston formally asked and obtained leave to be heard by counsel on the question whether the Crown really had the right, by law, to invade private premises, and to seize property, under process, not based on oath, which was not to name the premises or the property, or to allege any ground for supposing that an offence against the revenue laws had been committed. The case was argued twice. The ground taken for the petitioners is shown in the opening words of the petition; "they cannot," they allege, "fully exercise their offices in such a manner as his Majesty's service and the laws in such cases require, unless your Honours, who are vested with the power of a Court of Exchequer for this province, will please to grant them writs of assistants. 1 ' Gridley, who appeared for the petitioners, admitted that the writ of assistance took away the common privileges of Englishmen ; but so did process in cases of crime ; officers might break and enter houses to serve process in common law cases of felony. The necessity of the case justified the writ. Smugglers would elude the law if they had notice, and government would lose its means of support. Was not the revenue the sole support of fleets and armies abroad and ministers at home? Could the nation be preserved without such help? Was not this a matter infinitely more important than the punishment of thieves or even murderers ? Indeed the power in question was the same as that given by law of the province to treasurers for collecting taxes. Individuals must yield in such cases; the necessity of having public taxes and public revenues speedily collected was of much greater moment than the liberty of individuals. In the course of the second hearing Gridley further argued that the writ in question was a writ of assistants, not of assistance ; it was not intended to give greater power to officers, but to provide a check upon them; they were to have assistants to watch them. They could not enter a house without the presence of the sheriff or some other civil