<<  <  >  >>

Page 9

raising tax and tariff revenue in order to retire their

enormous war debt.  A general crackdown on smuggling soon

began.  The colonists fiercely resisted the restrictions

on trade, the custom duties, and the capricious customs

officers who attempted to enforce the British policy.

It is important to note that during this period the

separation-of-powers principle was still inchoate: it was

largely an abstract idea, discussed in books and newspa-

pers.  Still, certain Crown practices began to be judged

against that fundamental principle--even if only in the

court of public opinion.  Thus, when William Shirley, gov-

ernor of Massachusetts, began to issue "gubernatorial

search warrants" to customs officers in the summer of

1753, he was forced to abandon the practice because of

public opposition.13  British officers had to resume the

practice of applying for warrants from the Superior Court.

Although still structurally a part of the Crown, the

courts had adjudicative powers sufficiently distinct from

the Crown's executive powers to afford some relief for the

colonists.

Another Crown practice that drew the ire of the colo-

nists was multiple officeholding.  It was not uncommon

during this period for government officials to hold sever-

al posts simultaneously.  Thus, Thomas Hutchinson, a

prominent defender of the writs of assistance, served as

the Massachusetts Colony's lieutenant governor; but as

president of the colony's council, he was also the highest

ranking legislator.  To top it all off, Hutchinson was

also appointed chief justice of the colony's highest

court.  Hutchinson's accumulation of titles provoked wide-

spread antagonism among the people of Massachusetts.  The

people viewed him as a government lackey who had no con-

cern for their liberty or well-being.  Indeed, the

colonists came to loathe Hutchinson and his titles, derid-

ing him as "Summa Potestatis," the supreme power.14

In 1761, after public resentment of snooping customs

officials and their oppressive search tactics had reached

the boiling point, a group of Boston merchants retained

attorney James Otis to challenge the legality of the writs

of assistance.  The case was closely watched.  In fact,

Otis's forceful speech became one of the most famous legal

arguments in the annals of American law.

I will to my dying day oppose with all the pow-

ers and faculties God has given me all such

instruments of slavery, on the one hand, and

villainy, on the other, as this writ of assis-

tance is.  It appears to me the worst instrument