man prompted by revenge, ill-humor, 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."

This extract may serve to show the Demosthenic power of James
Otis as an orator. We cannot within our limits present many
additional paragraphs from his great plea in the cause of his
countrymen.

To the next division of his argument he confuted the position
taken by Gridley with respect to the alleged legal precedents for
the Writs of Assistance. He showed that the writs were wholly
different from those provided for in the time of Charles II.
Even if they had not been so, the epoch and the manner of King
Charles had passed away. Neither could the Writs be justified by
inferences and constructions deduced from any previous statutes
of Parliament.

Besides, such odious Writs could never be enforced. They could
never be enforced in the City of the Pilgrims. If the King of
England should himself encamp with twenty thousand soldiers on
the Common of Boston, he could not enforce such laws. He
assailed the sugar tax with unmeasured invective. And over and
above all, this despotic legislation was in direct conflict with
the Charter of Massachusetts.

Here the orator broke forth in his most impassioned strain
declaring that the British King, the British Parliament and the