A website from the Massachusetts Historical Society; founded 1791.
close
-
The Adams Papers Digital Edition is undergoing active maintenance while we work on improvements to the system. You may experience slow performance or the inability to access content. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We will endeavor to return to full capabilities as soon as possible.

Browsing: Papers of John Adams, Volume 2


Docno: ADMS-06-02-02-0003

Author: Warren, James
Recipient: Adams, John
Date: 1774-01-03

From James Warren

[salute] Dr. Sir

I Received your last and am to Acknowledge that the Contents of it gave me great pleasure.1 I have for some time thought it necessary that the People should strike some Bold stroke and Try the Issue. They have long enough Submitted to Oppressions and Insults following one another in A rapid Succession without finding any Advantage. They have now Indeed passed the River and left no retreat and must therefore Abide the Consequences. What those will be seems to be the great matter of Speculation and as People are determined by Reason or by the frightful List of Scarecrows and Bugbears (mentioned in your last and which are Employed on this Occasion) their speculations will differ. As your Judgment will be regulated by the first I should be glad to hear it. I think the Ministry have one way at least to avoid the necessity of Advancing or retreating at this time and that is by laying the Blame of the whole on their own and East India Compy. officers who have drove the People to this desperate step. And this, Justice and Truth (Company they have not been used too), will Countenance them in. In what proportion this Blame is to be laid to Each may be Adjusted Among them and if they quarrel in the settlement of that Matter we may Avail ourselves of the old Proverb. I Admire Doanes reasoning and if he was not Assisted by the Author of the Letter in the Methodical Arraignment of his Propositions I think he reasoned better on this, than any other Occasion. I made good Use of your Letter without mentioning the Authors Name to Encounter the Tory Bugbears and Allay the frigh[t]ful Apprehensions they had raised in some minds Otherwise firm. I Congratulate you on the Union of Sentiment and Spirit prevailing through the Continent,2 which makes even our Toric Protestors hang their Ears, and may in Time Affect the Obdurate Heart and Inveterate Resolution of H——n himself especially when he finds himself forsaken by a Tryon.3 The recantation made in Boston by one of our Protestors has sickend some Others. Divers of them Intending to Boston last week are still at Home. I am Inclined to think many or several Others here will follow his Example, tho' great Pains are taken to prevent it.4 I am Obliged to write in A great Hurry the Bearer haveing determind to go sooner this Morning than I Expected. I can therefore only Add that Mrs. Warren Joins in Com• { 7 } pliments and Regards to Mr. and Mrs. Adams and that I am with great Sincerity Your Friend and Humb. Servt,
[signed] Jas. Warren
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “To John Adams Esqr. att Boston p favr. Mr. Croswell.”
1. See 17 Dec. 1773, above; but Warren is also answering 22 Dec., above.
2. A reference to JA's letter of 22 Dec. 1773, above.
3. Gov. William Tryon of New York, yielding to popular pressure that had intensified with the news of the Boston Tea Party, allowed tea intended for his province to be returned to England (Benjamin W. Labaree, The Boston Tea Party, N.Y., 1964, p. 155).
4. On 7 Dec., the Plymouth town meeting adopted resolutions endorsing the Boston resolves of 1 Dec. concerning the importation of taxed tea. Warren himself was a member of the Plymouth committee which drafted these resolves. At a town meeting on 13 Dec., Edward Winslow presented a “Protest” signed by forty Plymouth residents who objected to the whig resolves of the preceding week. (The resolutions of 7 Dec. and the “Protest” of the 13th are printed in Massachusetts Gazette, 23 Dec.) The Boston Gazette of 27 Dec. carried the statement of Barnabas Hedge, one of the signers of the Plymouth “Protest,” disassociating himself from the document and its “gross Reflections” upon the Boston town meeting and admitting his “great Error” in having signed the “Protest.” For a further comment on the motives of the Plymouth protesters, see “Cornelius Nepos” in the Boston Gazette of 10 Jan. 1774.

Docno: ADMS-06-02-02-0004-0001

Editorial Note

A year after his newspaper debate with William Brattle and his contributions to the exchanges of the House of Representatives with Governor Hutchinson over constitutional issues (see 11 Jan. – 22 Feb. 1773 and 26 Jan. – 2 March 1773, above), John Adams took part in the closing chapter of the dispute over crown salaries for superior court judges. This last episode, an attempt to impeach Chief Justice Peter Oliver in February 1774, was also the last in a series of bitter controversies between Hutchinson and the House. It contributed to the weakening of the judicial system of the province.
While Adams in early 1773 had examined the theoretical issues raised by crown salaries for the judges, others had concerned themselves with the practical question of what action to take should the judges accept royal money. First, the House sought to obtain from the judges a refusal of { 8 } crown salaries by asserting that failure to refuse would impugn their character. When neither the judges nor the Governor vouchsafed assurances, the House spoke in stronger language. Those who took crown salaries were enemies to the constitution and promoters of arbitrary government (Mass., House Jour., 1772–1773, p. 224, 281–282).
Shortly after the General Court was adjourned in March 1773, Chief Justice Oliver (1713–1791) and the four puisne judges of the superior court—Edmund Trowbridge (1709–1793), Foster Hutchinson (1724–1799), Nathaniel Ropes (1726–1774), and William Cushing (1732–1810)—accepted half the salary voted them by the House for 1772, expecting the other half to be furnished by the Crown. (For sketches of members of the court, see Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 8:507–520, 737–763; 11:237–243, 572–574; 13:26–39. See also references to these jurists in JA, Diary and Autobiography.) Their action did not become generally known until the treasurer, Harrison Gray, testified before the House in June 1773. Out of patience, the House called for explicit statements from the judges on how each stood and threatened that if no response was forthcoming it would impeach them before the Governor and Council (House Jour., p. 76, 86–88, 94). By late August, when the superior court met in Boston, the position of the various judges was still not clear. Uncertainty over their intentions became an excuse for the grand jury formally to express its troubled concern over the issue and for a petit juryman to refuse service. Shortly thereafter it became public knowledge that all but Oliver had declared their intention to the speaker of the House to accept their salaries from the General Court (Massachusetts Spy, 2 Sept. 1773; Boston Gazette, 6, 13 Sept. 1773).
When the General Court came back into session, in January 1774, it accepted Trowbridge's written declaration that he would continue to draw his pay from the province and set a deadline of 8 February for the other judges to make similar declarations (House Jour., p. 113, 117–118). Oliver, first to reply to the House demand, submitted a long statement explaining why he could not comply; this became part of the articles of impeachment printed below. The other judges made answers deemed satisfactory to the House, but Oliver's reply was referred to a committee for suggestions for further action (same, 136–139). At this point John Adams came into the picture.
In his Autobiography (Diary and Autobiography, 3:299–302), Adams gives a lively account of how he astonished members of a dinner party early in 1774 with a proposal that judges accepting crown pay be impeached. All present had expressed fear that province liberties were threatened, but none had had an idea of what to do. Adams compared the House of Representatives to the Commons as a body of grand inquest, and the Council to the Lords as a body competent to try an impeachment. When some protested that the Council would not act, Adams calmly replied that if the House decided it had the power to go ahead, the Council would be forced { 9 } to look into its own powers and duty. Failure to proceed would leave the Council responsible for whatever consequences ensued.
As Adams had expected, his proposal was soon carried abroad and attracted the attention of Joseph Hawley, a member of the House committee named to deal with Oliver's intransigence. According to Adams, Hawley, nearly ignorant of what impeachment was, found the proposal a very strange one and asked him for clarification. Adams lent him several legal treatises. Although Hawley had been a member of the House at the time it threatened impeachment of the judges, he had been absent when the threat was made and had missed whatever discussion had taken place. Adams himself seems not to have known that the word had already been uttered in the House chamber, or time had erased all recollection of the resolution.
How seriously the word “impeach” had been used in the resolution of 28 June 1773 remains a mystery. The term may have been employed without full deliberation, for it is obvious that in February 1774 the House was willing to try every method short of impeachment to remove the Chief Justice. It petitioned the Governor to remove him; it changed the date of the February superior court session in Suffolk co. so that Oliver would not have to sit while the petition was under consideration; and it responded to the Governor's denial that Oliver had done any wrong and that the Council could play any part in hearing charges against him by sending a message to the Council asking for advice and for action as that body saw fit. The House even petitioned the Governor once again, urging him to take the advice of the Council. None of this sounded like a House eager for impeachment (House Jour., p. 146–151, 153–154, 159, 162–163, 167–168).
It was during this period, the second and third weeks of February, that Adams recorded visits from Hawley and an unnamed lawyer with whom Adams discussed the impeachment process. He recalled that Hawley also visited Judge Trowbridge, whom Hawley regarded highly for his knowledge of the law and who advised him that the House did indeed have the impeachment power, but that the Council would never carry through the process. When Judge Trowbridge encountered Adams later, he remarked upon Adams' determination “to explore the Constitution and bring to Life all its dormant and latent Powers, in defence of your Liberties as you understand them.” Adams was ready with his answer: “I should be very happy if the Constitution could carry Us safely through all our difficulties without having recourse to higher Powers not written” (Diary and Autobiography, 3:301)—a lawyer's clear preference for written instruments over less manageable rights based on natural law.
Finally, on 22 February, an angry governor summoned the members of the House to the Council chamber to point out to them that nothing in the charter required him to call the Council together for its advice. When the members got back to their chamber, they resolved at once to impeach the Chief Justice (House Jour., p. 183). Hawley, a member of the committee { 10 } to prepare articles of impeachment, was as dependent on Adams for aid as he had been a year earlier when the House engaged in constitutional debate with Hutchinson. Adams recalled that the Northampton lawyer “would do nothing without me, and insisted on bringing them [the articles of impeachment] to my house, to examine and discuss the Articles paragraph by Paragraph, which was readily consented to by the Committee. Several Evenings were spent in my Office, upon this Business, till very late at night” (Diary and Autobiography, 3:301–302).
By 24 February the articles were ready for submission to the House, where they were adopted by a vote of 92 to 8 (House Jour., p. 199–200). They declared that Oliver's refusal to accept a province salary and his explanation for his refusal constituted a misrepresentation of the character of the Massachusetts government and exposed an intention to alienate the province from the King, all with the purpose of supplanting the existing form of government with “an arbitrary and tyrannical Government in its Stead.” In line with the insistence of Adams and others that the House shared the functions and powers of the House of Commons, the articles closed with a paragraph that paraphrased the customary concluding statements in articles of impeachment brought in Parliament. (See, for example, such statements in T. B. and T. J. Howell, comps., A Complete Collection of State Trials, 34 vols., London, 1816–1828, 12:1215; 14:244; 15:40; 16:784; 18:548.)
Governor Hutchinson continued to deny any competence in the Council to hear charges and any constitutional authority in the House to institute impeachment proceedings. Even though the House persisted in laying the articles of impeachment before the Council and in the Governor's absence, declaring that he was “presumed” present, and even though the House wrote a new preamble to its articles and dropped the word “impeach” in favor of requesting “a Hearing and Trial,” Hutchinson remained unmoved. But when it became clear that the Council was almost as eager as the House to act, with or without the Governor present, Hutchinson adjourned the General Court and thus prevented the Council from taking up the charges (House Jour., p. 205, 216–217; M-Ar:Legislative Council Records, 30:257; Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 3:325).
Although the effort to remove Oliver was not successful, the impeachment process won another kind of victory: the undermining of Oliver's position on the bench. Adams was correct in his assessment that when Hutchinson blocked the removal, “the Friends of Administration thought they had obtained a Tryumph but they were mistaken” (Diary and Autobiography, 3:302). Jurors in Charlestown protested Oliver's presence on the bench, and in Worcester jurors probably would not have served had he appeared. The mood of ordinary men was so menacing that Oliver dared not join the court in Barnstable or Plymouth as it moved around on its circuit (Sibley-Shipton, Harvard Graduates, 8:752–753). By the end of August 1774 this open disrespect for the dignity of a judge perhaps made it easier for Massachusetts people to close the courts altogether in protest { 11 } against changes in their charter mandated by the Massachusetts Government Act, one of the Intolerable Acts passed by Parliament in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party.
Cite web page as: Founding Families: Digital Editions of the Papers of the Winthrops and the Adamses, ed.C. James Taylor. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2014.
http://www.masshist.org/apde2/