Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 1

James Duane's Speech to the Committee on Rights

[September 8, 1774](1)

The Task assigned to this Committee is no less important than it is difficult. It may be reduced to three Heads-
1. To State the Rights of the Colonies.
2. Their Grievances.
3. The Means of Redress.

It is necessary that the first point, our Rights, should be fully discussed and established upon solid Principles: because it is only from hence that our Grievances can be disclosed; & from a clear View of both that proper Remedies can be suggested and applied.

To ascertain the Constitutions of the Colonies has employed the Thoughts and the Pens of our ablest Politicians. But no System which has hitherto been published is solid or satisfactory.

During Disputes which arose from the Stamp Act an Exemption from internal Taxes (seemed to be the ultimate of the General Voice Wish) seemed to give general Content. The Regulation of Commerce was submitted to Parliament. Their Authority to alter the police (and administration) of our respective Governments was not in Contemplation because it had not been exercised.

Upon the Repeal therefore of the Stamp Act we had Reason to conclude that the Blessings of Security in our Liberties & Harmony with the Parent State woud be placed on a permanent Basis.

But short was our Repose and fleeting our Expectations. A despotic Minister soon discovered that under the Idea of a commercial Regulation our Property might still be invaded, and that by a guileful Change of a name we might still be oppressed at his pleasure.

Hence arose Mr Townsends project of loading british Commodities (which we are restrained from importing from any other Nation) with American Duties--As if this poor Evasion coud blind the Colonists, and conceal the Evil which was cloaked under so thin a disguise.

The Resentment & Vigorous opposition of this Country, & the immense Loss to which it exposed the british Manufacturers compeled the Repeal of this detested Law--Excepting the Article of Tea which has been the fatal Cause of our present Misfortunes.

It is now Sir essential to place our Rights on a broader & firmer Basis* to advance and adhere to some solid and Constitutional Principle which will preserve Us from future Violations--a principle clear & explicite and which is above the Reach of Cunning, & the Arts of oppression. I hope if we have the Happiness to rest upon such a principle, we shall have the Fortitude and the strength to maintain it. Let it be founded upon Reason and Justice, and satisfy the Consciences of our Countrymen. Let it be such as we dare refer to the Virtuous and impartial part of Mankind, and we shall and must, in the issue of the Conflict, be happy & triumphant.

(If this principle can call in to its Support) I conceive it to be the Duty of every Member to offer his Sentiments on this great Occasion without Reserve or Scruple. It will be examined with Candour and have all the weight it merits and if mine is defective it will be Excused from the uprightness of the Intention with which it is offered, & because it is an indispensable Duty.

I shall not forget that we are Colonies, That we are indebted to her for the Blessings of Protection, and that she ought to derive from every commercial Advantage which is the Result of our Connection and Dependence, Nor shall I anticipate either our own past Merit or the cruel Oppressions under which we now labour, because these will more properly be the Subject of our next Head of Enquiry. To the Rights of the Colonies I mean at present to be confin'd.

They may be (divided into two Heads) derived from two Sources.

1st. (As they are derived) from the common Law, & such ancient Statutes as are coeval with our (Emigration) Colonization.
2. As they are granted and secured by Charter.

Upon This last head I shall (refer to) reserve myself for further Information from Gentlemen whose local Circumstances have led them to discuss it with more precision. then Leisure has enabled me. I shall only observe that their Charters are to be esteemed as Com pacts, that they have long been acquiesced in, and if exceptionable in their origin can not now be violated but by oppression.(2) The first is a principle that is more general and extensive if not more solid and secure: and this I shall proceed to consider.

England is governed by a limited Monarchy and a free Constitution. But if the Subject is bound by a Law to which he does not assent, either personally or by his Representative, he is no longer Ire<< but under an arbitrary power, which may oppress or ruin him at pleasure.

It is admitted by the English Judicatories and has been solemnly resolved by the King in privy Council; that the Common Laws of England and such Statutes as existed prior to our Emigration are fundamentals in our Colony Constitution. Upon this grand Basis the prerogatives of the Crown & the Rights of the Subjects are as fully ascertained in the Plantations as in the parent State.

By the same Constitution the King has the Executive power and is the Fountain of Title offices and Honours. Hence arises his royal Authority Prerogative(3) in the formation of Colonies to establish a System of Governt. Legislative, Juridical and executive suitable to the Circumstance of a People who are blessed with the Priviledges which they never meant nor were supposed, nor coud forfeit, (by removing to a distant a more remote part of the English Empire) by altering their local situation within the same Empire. The priviledges of Englishmen were inherent They were their Birth right and of which they coud only be deprived by their free Consent. Every Institution legislative and Juridical, essential to the Exercise & Enjoyment of these Rights and priviledges in constitutional Security, were equally their Birth right and inalienable Inheritance. They coud not be with held but by lawless oppression and by lawless oppression only can they be violated.

It is objected that upon this principle the Colonies are independent and exempt from the Authority of the British parliament and free from all Obligation to render to the parent State those advantages which ought to be the Recompence of Protection, to result from the very nature of Colonization And to be justified from the Usage of every commercial Nation.

To which it may be answerd that the Sovereignty and Prerogatives of the Crown (must effectually prevent the Independence of the Colonies) our own Security & the Ties of Friendship & common Interest the similiarity of our Government Laws and manners will be sufficient to prevent (a Rupture) an Independence which nothing but Oppression can ever reconcile to an American Ear.

(With respect to the Advantages arising from our Commerce it is certain that if we were under no Obligation the principal Advantages woud center in the parent Country where Manufactures are as cheap better in Quality.)

But we need not depend on this observation. Had Great Britain till this late day taken no measures to secure the Commerce of the Colonies but left them free to pursue their own Interest and Inclinations I shoud not hesitate to pronounce (any restrictive Act of Parliament of this late day to be) that all Restraints by Authority of Parliament would now be unauthoritative and oppressive.

This however is not the Case. Every Just and reasonable Advantage the parent Country has long since effectually secured and uniformly enjoyed.(4)

1. That political Liberty is the great Object of the English Constitution.

2 .That it is essential to Liberty that the Subject be bound by no Laws to which he does not assent by himself or his Representative; A privilege which forms the distinction between Freemen & Slaves for he that is bound to submit to the arbitrary will of another

MS (NHi). Endorsed: "Committee to State Rights of Colonies in Congress of 1774." Tr (NN: Bancroft Collection). Endorsed: "from J. Duane's memoranda"; "Committee--state Rights of Colonies--in Congress 1774." Printed, with the last two paragraphs omitted, in Samuel W. Jones, Memoir of the Hon. James Duane, Judge of the District Court of the U. States for New York (Schenectady, N.Y.: Keyser, Printer, 1852), pp. 43-45.
1 A comparison between this MS and John Adams' record of Duane's remarks before the committee on September 8 demonstrates almost conclusively that Duane delivered this speech on that date. See John Adams' Notes of Debates, September 8, 1774.
2 This sentence, which Duane wrote in the margin of the MS in pencil, is so faded that the present reading is based mainly on Bancroft Tr and Jones, Memoir of Duane, p. 44.
3 Duane first wrote "Authority" and then inserted "Prerogative" above it; but since he crossed out neither word, both have been allowed to stand here.
4 Here the main body of Duane's speech ends. The next two paragraphs, the second of which ends abruptly, were written on a detached sheet and conceivably were intended for insertion somewhere in the preceding text.

* - And our rights were indeed placed “on a broader & firmer Basis”. Although, it was much more of a broad and firm basis than what Mr. Duane contended for above. To Wit;

Journals of the Continental Congress,

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1774, 9 o'clock a. m.

John Adams' Notes of Debates

...South Carolina, Mr. [Thomas] Lynch, and Mr. J[ohn] Rutledge.¹

[Note 1: 1 The Committee to "state the rights &c" met on the 8th, entered into the subject, and adjourned. John Adams says the Committee sat all day, "and a most ingenious, entertaining debate we had." This debate is summarized in his Works, II, 370. Another meeting was held on the 9th. "Agreed to found our rights upon the laws of Nature, the principles of the English Constitution, and charters and compacts; ordered a Sub-Committee to draw up a Statement of Rights." (Ward.) Galloway and Duane were for excluding the law of nature; John Adams insisted on retaining it. A second question was the authority to be conceded to Parliament; "whether we should deny the authority of Parliament in all cases; whether we should allow any authority to it in our internal affairs; or whether we should allow it to regulate the trade of the Empire with or without any restrictions" Adams. The sub-committee, of which John Adams and John Rutledge were members, held sessions from the 10th to the 14th, and then reported to the great Committee, where the affair hung so long that other members of Congress were "jealous." On the 22d. a report was made to Congress. On the 14th the great Committee appointed a sub-committee to "state the infringements of our rights." The report was laid before Congress on the 24th.]

The part that I find most interesting about what Mr. Duane had stated above however. Is the sentence;

“A despotic Minister soon discovered that under the Idea of a commercial Regulation our Property might still be invaded, and that by a guileful Change of a name we might still be oppressed at his pleasure.”

Evidently, the present day usurping tyrants don't have much imagination, do they? For, is that not precisely the same thing that they are doing to us today? By having turned our Right over to the supposed 'authority' of the Treasury Dept.? Then again, evil never has been known as being very original, has it? It generally only perverts, subverts and twists that which was originally good.

Finally, let's consider the sentence;

“A privilege which forms the distinction between Freemen & Slaves for he that is bound to submit to the arbitrary will of another”

Hmmm, now what do you suppose that makes We The People of today? Given that we are “a People who are blessed with the Priviledges which they never meant nor were supposed, nor coud forfeit”? And, that a Right is far above the status of a mere conditional “priviledge”. Especially, when it is an “inalienable” and “inherent” one that is labelled “Shall NOT be infringed” in a Constitutional Republic.

Now, you'll have to excuse me, it seems my chains need oiled. Don't let the rattling bother you...