COMMERCIAL REFORM 99
law, probably continued much as before; and there may
have been a slight increase in the volume of the illicit export
trade, due to the fact that after 1766 all American com-
modities, shipped for European ports north of Cape Finis-
terre, must first be entered at a British port.
law, probably continued much as before; and there may
have been a slight increase in the volume of the illicit export
trade, due to the fact that after 1766 all American com-
modities, shipped for European ports north of Cape Finis-
terre, must first be entered at a British port.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
87-88.
* The colonists also paid revenue duties on enumerated goods im-
ported from another British colony (25 Charles II, c. 7), on coffee
and pimento imported from British possessions (6 George III, c. 52),
and on imported wines (4 George III, c. 15).
* It is not necessary to recount here this familiar episode. The mer-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 94 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The revenue feature of Townshend's policy was accom-
plished by adding a list of port duties to those already in
force. The following articles were to be taxed at the time
of their landing in America: five varieties of glass, red and
white lead, painters' colors, sixty-seven grades of paper, and
tea. 1 All these articles were British manufactures, except
tea, which was handled by the greatest British monopoly of
the times, the East India Company. The imposition of
the three-penny tea tax in America was accompanied by the
remission of the duty paid at the time that the tea was im-
ported into Great Britain, the object being to enable dutied
tea to undersell any tea that was smuggled into the colonies. 2
One portion of the revenue act was designed " for more
effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods. . . "
With this purpose in view, it was provided that the revenue-
produced by the duties should be used to free the judges and
civil officers in such colonies as " it shall be found neces-
sary" from financial dependence on the local legislatures.
More immediately to the point, express legalization was
given to the hitherto questionable practice of the colonial
supreme courts in issuing writs of assistance to customs
officials. By means of these writs, customs officers were to
receive power to search for contraband goods in any house
or shop, and, in case of resistance, to break open doors,
chests, etc. , and seize the goods in question.
Other regulations were designed to strengthen the ad-
ministrative side of the customs service. 8 These made
chant class were not interested in this act of Parliament; and in the
various non-importation agreements adopted later, this law was not
once named for repeal. j_ ? ? . _? . yti "T"
1 7 George III, c. 46.
1 7 George III, c. 56. The East India Company was required to make
good any deficiency in the revenues which might result from the dis-
continuance of certain tea duties. Farrand, Max, "Taxation of Tea,.
1767-1773," Am. Hist. Rev. , vol. iii, pp. 266-269.
1 7 George III, c. 41.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM 95.
possible the establishment of a board of commissioners of
the customs at Boston, with entire charge of the collection of
customs throughout the continent as well as at Bermuda and
the Bahamas. The commissioners were given power to
place the customs service on a basis of comparative effic-
iency. Disputes, which had hitherto been carried to the
Commissioners of the Customs at London for settlement,
were to be determined by this new American board with
much less trouble, delay and expense to the parties con-
cerned.
Certain changes in the interest of greater efficiency were
also made in the system of colonial courts of vice-admiralty. 1
In addition to the courts already existing in the several
provinces, vice-admiralty courts of large powers were es-
tablished at Boston, Philadelphia and Charleston with orig-
inal jurisdiction over the capture of vessels in their respec-
tive districts and with appellate jurisdiction over the
subordinate vice-admiralty courts.
TThe situation in which the merchants of the commercial
provinces found themselves in the latter months of 1767
was not unlike their situation in the latter part of 1764,
save that on this later occasion Philadelphia did not seem to
be as greatly affected as the other portsj Again, the mer-
chants were confronted with trade restrictions--some of
them hanging over from 1764--which reduced business
profits. Again, they faced new and rigorous regulations
against smuggling, regulations which betokened a serious-
ness of purpose on the part of the government which was
not open to misconstruction. And again, they perceived
that the burden of seeking redress must fall upon their own
shoulders, the planters of the South being- involved less
directly and l^ss nhvirmsly in the new legislation.
18 George III, c. 22. Vide also N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. vii, pp. 459-460.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
determination of the merchants to conduct their
campaign for redress along legal and peaceable lines was
at once made manifest. On November 20, 1767, the day
the Townshend acts became effective, James Otis, the lawyer
of the Boston merchants, presided over a town meeting;
and after telling the people that relief should be sought
"in a legal and constitutional way," he roundly denounced
mob riots, even to the extent of declaring that "no possi-
ble circumstances, though ever so oppressive, could be sup-
posed sufficient to justify private tumults and disorders/
. . . " The selectmen, most of whom were merchants by
trade, appealed to the people a few days later, in an article
over their signatures, to avoid " all outrage or lawless pro-
ceeding " and stand firm " in a prudent conduct and cautious
behaviour. " * In a similar spirit, John Dickinson, the
wealthy Pennsylvania lawyer, in his "Letters from a
Farmer in Pennsylvania," published serially during the sub-
sequent three months, took frequent and emphatic occasion
to condemn "turbulence and tumult" and to laud "con-
stitutional modes of obtaining relief. "2 This was the spirit
in which the second contest for commercial reform got
under way. Had the conflict been of shorter duration,
the desires of the leaders might have been realized. But the
length of the contest, with the increasing restlessness and
self-confidence of the radical elements, made the introduc-
tion of mob methods inevitable.
The course of opposition pursued by the merchants par-
1 Vide Bos. Post-Boy, Nov. 30, 1767, and. Frothingham, Rise of Re-
public, pp. 206-208, for these and other instances. Vide also Hutchin-
son, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, pp. 180-181.
1 The twelve articles appeared originally in issues of the Pa. Chronicle
from Dec. 2, 1767 to Feb. IS, 1768. For Dickinson's views on "hot,
rash, disorderly proceedings," vide in particular Letter III; Writings
(Ford), vol. i, pp. 322-328.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM 97
took of a double character. Onjhe one hand, there were
the activities of the smuggling merchants, protected by
popular op1mon and bent upon the pursuit of gain in de-
fiance of parliamentary restrictions. On the other hand,
there stood the whole merchant class, confident oT their
power to coerce the nation of shopkeepers into concessions
through exercise of the boycott, and prepared to develop
this instrument beyond anything dreamed of during Stamp
Act times.
Smuggling proved to be the first channel through which
violence was injected into the struggle. There occurred
the usual vicious sequence: evasion of the law leading to
defiance of the law, and defiance of the law breeding vio-
lence. After the revision of the trade laws in 1 766 and the
passage of the new acts of 1767, the character of colonial
contraband trade changed greatly. The running of mo-
lasses, which had formerly formed the great bulk of illicit
traffic, had been rendered considerably less profitable by
the reduction of the duty. 1 The Townshend duties, with
a single exception, fell on articles manufactured in Great
Qi encouraging smuggl1ng' in these
g. >t-. r<<>^ oe Q gHfpnly^ tn their production in the
colonies.
The exception noted, the duty on tea, was so ingeniously
1 Since the duty has been reduced, "the whole, tho' grievous, has
been regularly paid. " Observations of tl1e Merchants at Boston upon
Several Acts of Parliament, etc. (1770), pp. 29-30. It should further
be noted that, beginning with the year 1768, a succession of temporary
acts removed the prohibition from the exportation of American meats
and butter to Great Britain, and sometimes from cereals and raw hides
as well. E. g. , vide 8 George III, c. 9; 9 George III, c. 39; 10 George
III, c. 1, c. 2; 11 George III, c. 8; 13 George III, c. 1, c. 2, c. 3, c. 4,
c. 5; 15 George III, c. 7. The passage of these acts made it less neces-
sary for colonial merchants to seek in foreign markets commodities
which might serve as remittances to England and thus reduce the
temptation to smuggling.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? pg THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
contrived as to have the immediate effect of lowering the
price of customed tea in America below that of any that
could be smuggled from Holland or elsewhere. 1 This con-
dition lasted until 1769 when the East India Company,
hard pressed by creditors and seeking to recoup some of its
losses, advanced the upset price of tea at the public auctions
in Great Britain. This caused the exporting merchant, who
bid in the tea, to raise the price to the American merchant,
and the American merchant to raise the price to the colonial
retailer. So that the colonial consumer thereafter found
it advantageous to drink Dutch tea; and tea smuggling be-
gan to thrive. 2
Until that time, it would appear that the chief concern
of the smugglers was the running of wine from Madeira
and the Azores, a traffic vastly stimulated by the high duty
demanded for legal importation. * In view of the com-
motions that resulted, one might add in supplementation
of John Adams' remark concerning molasses that wine was
another essential ingredient of American independence.
The importation of Dutch, French and German manu-
factures without stoppage at Great Britain, as required by
1 Tea imported from Great Britain became nine-pence cheaper per
pound. Bos. Gas. , Aug. 15, 1768; Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Dec. 19, 1774.
1 Hutchinson to Hillsborough, Aug. 25, 1771, Bos. Gas. , Nov. 27, 1775.
Vide infra, p. 250.
1 This duty was no less than seven pounds per tun under the act of
1764. As Kelly, the New York merchant, told a committee of Parlia-
ment, "wherever there is a great difference of Price, there will be a
Daring Spirit to attempt [smuggling] notwithstanding all Preventions. "
Brit. Mus. Addl. Mss. , no. 33030 (L. C. Transcripts), f. 136. For ex-
ample, an official report, made evidently for the Customs Board, stated
that thirty vessels, entering at New York from Madeira and the Azores,
had not entered sufficient goods to load one vessel. Ibid. , no. 154^4, f. 6.
Golden said that few New York merchants were not engaged in con-
traband trade and that " Whole Cargoes from Holland and Ship Loads
of Wine" had been brought in without the payment of duties. Letter
Books, vol. ii, pp. 133-134.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
?
COMMERCIAL REFORM 99
law, probably continued much as before; and there may
have been a slight increase in the volume of the illicit export
trade, due to the fact that after 1766 all American com-
modities, shipped for European ports north of Cape Finis-
terre, must first be entered at a British port.
The continuance of smuggling after 1767 should not be
made to argue the total failure of Townshend's endeavor
to reform the customs administration. The Board of Cus-
toms Commissioners at Boston performed a vastly creditable
service in reducing peculation and laziness on the part of
officials and in establishing a stricter system of coast con-
trol. The number of customs employees was greatly in-
creased--in the case of Philadelphia, trebled in the years
1767-1770. l Writs of assistance were more generally and
more effectively used than at any earlier period. Revenue
cutters were stationed at leading ports; and smaller vessels,
belonging to the navy and acting under deputation of the
commissioners, searched out suspected ships in the numer-
ous rivers and inlets. A representation of the Boston mer-
chants, made in 1770, declared that the Customs Board had
employed upwards of twenty vessels that year, and that
some of the captains had purchased small boats of their
own to search in shallow waters. 2 Undoubtedly the total
volume of illicit trade was smaller after 1767 than at any
period subsequent to the enactment of the Molasses Act in
1733;2 and this was due, in some degree, to the activities
of the Customs Board. 4
1 Channing, History of United States, vol. iii, pp. 88-89.
1 Observations of the Merchants at Boston, etc. , pp. 24-25.
2 On the other hand, Golden claimed, in November, 1767, and re-
peatedly in the following months, that at New York "a greater quan-
tity of Goods has been Run without paying Duties since the Repeal of
the Stamp Act than had been done in ten years before. " Letter Books,
vol. ii, pp. 133-134, 138, 148, 153, 163, 172.
* Note the table of penalties and seizures, quoted by Professor Chan-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 100 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Two conditions militated against the success of the Cus-
toms Board in wiping out smuggling. One was the extent
of the coastline to be watched. The other was the active
sympathy which the populace extended to the smugglers.
The importance of this latter factor was shown by the
peremptory treatment of those who were reckless enough
to reveal to a customs officer the secret of their neighbors'
prosperity. Thus, an informer cowered before a gathering
of merchants and inhabitants of New Haven in September,
1769, and humbly acknowledged his iniquity in attempting
to inform against Mr. Timothy Jones, Jr. , for "running
of goods. "' During the following month an informer at
Boston was tarred and feathered and paraded through the
principal streets ; z and three others of his kind in New
York received similar treatment --" to the great Satisfac-
tion of all the good Inhabitants of this City, and to the
great Terror of evil doers," as one loyal New Yorker
averred. * ,^
1<;r> produced collisions with the cus-
toms officials. While in discharge of his duty, Jesse Saville,
a tide waiter of the custom house at Providence, was viol-
ning, op. cit. , vol. iii, p. 89 n. Eloquent evidence of the prevalence of
smuggling as late as 1770 is shown in a survey of the customs districts
and ports, made, it would appear, for the Customs Board. This report
is entitled, "Ports of North America. " It shows clearly that wide
stretches of coast were free from proper customs supervision and
makes detailed recommendations for stricter oversight. Considerable
smuggling is also alleged in the plantation provinces at this period
Brit. Mus. Addl. Mss. , no. 15484 (L. C. Transcripts).
1 New London Gas. , Sept. 20, 1769; also Mass. Gas. 6r News Letter,
Oct. 5.
1 1bid. , Nov. 2, 9, 1769; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, pp. 259-260.
'Mass. Gas. & News Letter, Oct. 12, 1769. Golden wrote in January,
1768, to Grenville: "No man dare inform, so that whole cargoes have
been run without entry in the Custom House. " Letter Books, vol. H,
P- 153.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM IOI
ently assaulted and then tarred and feathered, in 1769. A
reward of fifty pounds sterling for the perpetrators of this
act was vainly offered by the Customs Board. 1 In July
of the same year, a mob at Newport dismantled and burnt
the revenue sloop Liberty, which had just brought into the
harbor two vessels suspected of smuggling. 2 "Both vessels
that were seized have since proceeded on their respective
voyages," noted the Newport Mercury laconically on July
22. At Philadelphia, the revenue officials attempted in
April, 1769, to get possession of about fifty pipes of Ma-
deira wine that had been imported without payment of
duties. Their efforts stirred up a mob which stole away the
booty from under their very noses and maltreated some
of the officers. Later, the merchants offered to restore
the wine; and, after some delay, they returned "not near
the Quantity that was taken" and, instead of Madeira,
"no better than mean Fyall [Fayal]. " A revenue em-
ployee who had been active in this affair went to Boston
to recuperate from his injuries, because, as he earnestly
avowed, "I could not think of tarrying among a sett of
People under my present circumstances whose greatest
pleasure would be to have an oppofrtunity] of burying
me. "8
Even from the plantation provinces came echoes of in-
dignation against the officiousness of customs officers and
the new powers of the vice-admiralty courts. Infringe-
ments of the acts of trade were comparatively rare in that
portion of British America; and it was the boast of the
1 Arnold, Rhode Island, vol. ii, p. 294.
* R. I. Col. Recs. , vol. vi, pp. 593-596; Gammel, W. , Samuel Ward (?
Libr. Am. Biog. , vol. ix), pp. 288-290. For instances of forcible im-
portation in Massachusetts and 'Rhode Island, vide Weeden, Ec. and
Soc. Hist, of New Engl. , vol. ii, p. 762.
1 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. x, pp. 611-617.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 102 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
wealthy Charleston merchant and factor, Henry Laurens.
that he had never intentionally violated them. Yet, in spite
of the efforts of the Customs Board to secure higher admin-
istrative efficiency, the customs officers at Charleston were
unprincipled and corrupt; and the merchants of that port
were subjected to petty tyrannies, from which the local
vice-admiralty court afforded no relief. Laurens himself
was put to great expense through the seizure on technical
charges in 1767 and 1768, of three of his vessels, two of
which were eventually released. A conservative from
temperamental as well as business reasons, his emotions
were, for the first time, deeply stirred to the defense of
so-called American liberties, and in 1769 he produced an
able controversial pamphlet setting forth his new views
under the title, Sow,? General Ofir"""ltintp nn American
custom house officers and Courts of Vice-Admiralty.
Thoroughly academic and unemotional as he hacT been in
his objections to the Stamp Act, he could write in 1769 to
a London friend tharX^ihe enormous created powers vested
in an American Court of Vice-Admiralty threatens future
generations in America with a curse tenfold worse than
the Stamp Act. 'JJ
The most important work performed by the Customs
Board was the breaking of the power of the smugglers at
Boston. This was accomplished only through a resort to
extreme measures. In the years immediately following
1766, there were a number of cases at Boston of forcible
landing of contraband goods, of rescue of lawful seizures,
and of mobbing of revenue officers. 2 John Robinson, one
of the Customs Board, in his testimony before the Privy
1 For this incident, vide Wallace, Henry Laurens, pp. 137-149. Vide
also Prov. Gas. , Oct. 3, 1767, July 23, 1768.
1 Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial, vol. v, no. 155. Vide also
Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 188.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM IC>3
Council in 1770, stated that he hesitated to say that "the
Disturbances may be properly called Riots, as the Rioters
appear to be under Discipline. "
Feeling unable to cope with the situation, the Customs
Board, in February, 1768, asked Commodore Hood at
Halifax for a public vessel to protect them in the discharge
of their functions. "We have every reason," they said,
"to expect that we shall find it impracticable to enforce
the execution of the revenue laws, until the hand of gov-
ernment is properly strengthened. At present, there is not
a ship-of-war in the province, nor a company of soldiers
nearer than New York. " 1 In answer to repeated requests,
the man-of-war Romney was stationed at Boston a few
months later. The board now pressed for additional ships
and for the presence of troops, but their requests failed of
effect.
Affairs came to a crisis a few months later, when John
Hancock's sloop Liberty arrived in port from Madeira with
a quantity of wine. A tidesman went on board and ob-
jected to the landing of any wine until entry was made at
the custom house; whereupon the fellow was heaved into
the cabin and kept there while the cargo was expeditiously
removed. On June 10, about a month later, the vessel was
seized by order of the Customs Board. A crowd assembled
and, in great uneasiness, watched the removal of the vessel
to within gun-range of the Romney. Soon they lost their
restraint; and, in the rioting that ensued, the custom-house
officers were assaulted and the houses of several of them
pelted, and other damage done. 2
1 Bancroft, G. , History of United States (Boston, 1876), vol. iv, p. 75.
1 The Liberty was condemned by the vice-adfniralty court. Bos.
Chron. , June 13, 1768; . Sears, L. , John Hancock (Boston, 1912), pp. 11o-
114; Brown, John Hancock His Book, p. 156; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? I04 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Alleging helplessness, the Customs Board retired to Castle
William and again renewed their demand for troops. This
time they had made good their case; two regiments arrived
on the scene about four months after the riot, and the
customs commissioners resumed their headquarters at
Boston. From this time forward Boston lost its importance
as a smuggling port; and the great centers of contraband
trade became New York and Philadelphia, with Newport
as a center of minor importance. 1
However jusrfiable the action may have appeared from
an administrative point of view, the British government
made a bad tactical error in sending soldiers to Boston.
The statesmanlike policy of maintaining a standing army
to protect the empire from foreign enemies had degenerated
into an employment of the troops as a military police to
enforce hated laws on the people themselves. The worst
fears of the radicals were vindicated. Their efforts and
those of the merchants were used for the next two years
to procure the removal of the troops. Sporadic outbreaks
of resistance to customs officials continued to occur. 2
Of greater interest and significance in the controversy
vol. iii, pp. 189-194. For Hancock's letters ordering the wine, vide
Brown, op. cit. , pp.
* The colonists also paid revenue duties on enumerated goods im-
ported from another British colony (25 Charles II, c. 7), on coffee
and pimento imported from British possessions (6 George III, c. 52),
and on imported wines (4 George III, c. 15).
* It is not necessary to recount here this familiar episode. The mer-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 94 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The revenue feature of Townshend's policy was accom-
plished by adding a list of port duties to those already in
force. The following articles were to be taxed at the time
of their landing in America: five varieties of glass, red and
white lead, painters' colors, sixty-seven grades of paper, and
tea. 1 All these articles were British manufactures, except
tea, which was handled by the greatest British monopoly of
the times, the East India Company. The imposition of
the three-penny tea tax in America was accompanied by the
remission of the duty paid at the time that the tea was im-
ported into Great Britain, the object being to enable dutied
tea to undersell any tea that was smuggled into the colonies. 2
One portion of the revenue act was designed " for more
effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods. . . "
With this purpose in view, it was provided that the revenue-
produced by the duties should be used to free the judges and
civil officers in such colonies as " it shall be found neces-
sary" from financial dependence on the local legislatures.
More immediately to the point, express legalization was
given to the hitherto questionable practice of the colonial
supreme courts in issuing writs of assistance to customs
officials. By means of these writs, customs officers were to
receive power to search for contraband goods in any house
or shop, and, in case of resistance, to break open doors,
chests, etc. , and seize the goods in question.
Other regulations were designed to strengthen the ad-
ministrative side of the customs service. 8 These made
chant class were not interested in this act of Parliament; and in the
various non-importation agreements adopted later, this law was not
once named for repeal. j_ ? ? . _? . yti "T"
1 7 George III, c. 46.
1 7 George III, c. 56. The East India Company was required to make
good any deficiency in the revenues which might result from the dis-
continuance of certain tea duties. Farrand, Max, "Taxation of Tea,.
1767-1773," Am. Hist. Rev. , vol. iii, pp. 266-269.
1 7 George III, c. 41.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM 95.
possible the establishment of a board of commissioners of
the customs at Boston, with entire charge of the collection of
customs throughout the continent as well as at Bermuda and
the Bahamas. The commissioners were given power to
place the customs service on a basis of comparative effic-
iency. Disputes, which had hitherto been carried to the
Commissioners of the Customs at London for settlement,
were to be determined by this new American board with
much less trouble, delay and expense to the parties con-
cerned.
Certain changes in the interest of greater efficiency were
also made in the system of colonial courts of vice-admiralty. 1
In addition to the courts already existing in the several
provinces, vice-admiralty courts of large powers were es-
tablished at Boston, Philadelphia and Charleston with orig-
inal jurisdiction over the capture of vessels in their respec-
tive districts and with appellate jurisdiction over the
subordinate vice-admiralty courts.
TThe situation in which the merchants of the commercial
provinces found themselves in the latter months of 1767
was not unlike their situation in the latter part of 1764,
save that on this later occasion Philadelphia did not seem to
be as greatly affected as the other portsj Again, the mer-
chants were confronted with trade restrictions--some of
them hanging over from 1764--which reduced business
profits. Again, they faced new and rigorous regulations
against smuggling, regulations which betokened a serious-
ness of purpose on the part of the government which was
not open to misconstruction. And again, they perceived
that the burden of seeking redress must fall upon their own
shoulders, the planters of the South being- involved less
directly and l^ss nhvirmsly in the new legislation.
18 George III, c. 22. Vide also N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. vii, pp. 459-460.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
determination of the merchants to conduct their
campaign for redress along legal and peaceable lines was
at once made manifest. On November 20, 1767, the day
the Townshend acts became effective, James Otis, the lawyer
of the Boston merchants, presided over a town meeting;
and after telling the people that relief should be sought
"in a legal and constitutional way," he roundly denounced
mob riots, even to the extent of declaring that "no possi-
ble circumstances, though ever so oppressive, could be sup-
posed sufficient to justify private tumults and disorders/
. . . " The selectmen, most of whom were merchants by
trade, appealed to the people a few days later, in an article
over their signatures, to avoid " all outrage or lawless pro-
ceeding " and stand firm " in a prudent conduct and cautious
behaviour. " * In a similar spirit, John Dickinson, the
wealthy Pennsylvania lawyer, in his "Letters from a
Farmer in Pennsylvania," published serially during the sub-
sequent three months, took frequent and emphatic occasion
to condemn "turbulence and tumult" and to laud "con-
stitutional modes of obtaining relief. "2 This was the spirit
in which the second contest for commercial reform got
under way. Had the conflict been of shorter duration,
the desires of the leaders might have been realized. But the
length of the contest, with the increasing restlessness and
self-confidence of the radical elements, made the introduc-
tion of mob methods inevitable.
The course of opposition pursued by the merchants par-
1 Vide Bos. Post-Boy, Nov. 30, 1767, and. Frothingham, Rise of Re-
public, pp. 206-208, for these and other instances. Vide also Hutchin-
son, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, pp. 180-181.
1 The twelve articles appeared originally in issues of the Pa. Chronicle
from Dec. 2, 1767 to Feb. IS, 1768. For Dickinson's views on "hot,
rash, disorderly proceedings," vide in particular Letter III; Writings
(Ford), vol. i, pp. 322-328.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM 97
took of a double character. Onjhe one hand, there were
the activities of the smuggling merchants, protected by
popular op1mon and bent upon the pursuit of gain in de-
fiance of parliamentary restrictions. On the other hand,
there stood the whole merchant class, confident oT their
power to coerce the nation of shopkeepers into concessions
through exercise of the boycott, and prepared to develop
this instrument beyond anything dreamed of during Stamp
Act times.
Smuggling proved to be the first channel through which
violence was injected into the struggle. There occurred
the usual vicious sequence: evasion of the law leading to
defiance of the law, and defiance of the law breeding vio-
lence. After the revision of the trade laws in 1 766 and the
passage of the new acts of 1767, the character of colonial
contraband trade changed greatly. The running of mo-
lasses, which had formerly formed the great bulk of illicit
traffic, had been rendered considerably less profitable by
the reduction of the duty. 1 The Townshend duties, with
a single exception, fell on articles manufactured in Great
Qi encouraging smuggl1ng' in these
g. >t-. r<<>^ oe Q gHfpnly^ tn their production in the
colonies.
The exception noted, the duty on tea, was so ingeniously
1 Since the duty has been reduced, "the whole, tho' grievous, has
been regularly paid. " Observations of tl1e Merchants at Boston upon
Several Acts of Parliament, etc. (1770), pp. 29-30. It should further
be noted that, beginning with the year 1768, a succession of temporary
acts removed the prohibition from the exportation of American meats
and butter to Great Britain, and sometimes from cereals and raw hides
as well. E. g. , vide 8 George III, c. 9; 9 George III, c. 39; 10 George
III, c. 1, c. 2; 11 George III, c. 8; 13 George III, c. 1, c. 2, c. 3, c. 4,
c. 5; 15 George III, c. 7. The passage of these acts made it less neces-
sary for colonial merchants to seek in foreign markets commodities
which might serve as remittances to England and thus reduce the
temptation to smuggling.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? pg THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
contrived as to have the immediate effect of lowering the
price of customed tea in America below that of any that
could be smuggled from Holland or elsewhere. 1 This con-
dition lasted until 1769 when the East India Company,
hard pressed by creditors and seeking to recoup some of its
losses, advanced the upset price of tea at the public auctions
in Great Britain. This caused the exporting merchant, who
bid in the tea, to raise the price to the American merchant,
and the American merchant to raise the price to the colonial
retailer. So that the colonial consumer thereafter found
it advantageous to drink Dutch tea; and tea smuggling be-
gan to thrive. 2
Until that time, it would appear that the chief concern
of the smugglers was the running of wine from Madeira
and the Azores, a traffic vastly stimulated by the high duty
demanded for legal importation. * In view of the com-
motions that resulted, one might add in supplementation
of John Adams' remark concerning molasses that wine was
another essential ingredient of American independence.
The importation of Dutch, French and German manu-
factures without stoppage at Great Britain, as required by
1 Tea imported from Great Britain became nine-pence cheaper per
pound. Bos. Gas. , Aug. 15, 1768; Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Dec. 19, 1774.
1 Hutchinson to Hillsborough, Aug. 25, 1771, Bos. Gas. , Nov. 27, 1775.
Vide infra, p. 250.
1 This duty was no less than seven pounds per tun under the act of
1764. As Kelly, the New York merchant, told a committee of Parlia-
ment, "wherever there is a great difference of Price, there will be a
Daring Spirit to attempt [smuggling] notwithstanding all Preventions. "
Brit. Mus. Addl. Mss. , no. 33030 (L. C. Transcripts), f. 136. For ex-
ample, an official report, made evidently for the Customs Board, stated
that thirty vessels, entering at New York from Madeira and the Azores,
had not entered sufficient goods to load one vessel. Ibid. , no. 154^4, f. 6.
Golden said that few New York merchants were not engaged in con-
traband trade and that " Whole Cargoes from Holland and Ship Loads
of Wine" had been brought in without the payment of duties. Letter
Books, vol. ii, pp. 133-134.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
?
COMMERCIAL REFORM 99
law, probably continued much as before; and there may
have been a slight increase in the volume of the illicit export
trade, due to the fact that after 1766 all American com-
modities, shipped for European ports north of Cape Finis-
terre, must first be entered at a British port.
The continuance of smuggling after 1767 should not be
made to argue the total failure of Townshend's endeavor
to reform the customs administration. The Board of Cus-
toms Commissioners at Boston performed a vastly creditable
service in reducing peculation and laziness on the part of
officials and in establishing a stricter system of coast con-
trol. The number of customs employees was greatly in-
creased--in the case of Philadelphia, trebled in the years
1767-1770. l Writs of assistance were more generally and
more effectively used than at any earlier period. Revenue
cutters were stationed at leading ports; and smaller vessels,
belonging to the navy and acting under deputation of the
commissioners, searched out suspected ships in the numer-
ous rivers and inlets. A representation of the Boston mer-
chants, made in 1770, declared that the Customs Board had
employed upwards of twenty vessels that year, and that
some of the captains had purchased small boats of their
own to search in shallow waters. 2 Undoubtedly the total
volume of illicit trade was smaller after 1767 than at any
period subsequent to the enactment of the Molasses Act in
1733;2 and this was due, in some degree, to the activities
of the Customs Board. 4
1 Channing, History of United States, vol. iii, pp. 88-89.
1 Observations of the Merchants at Boston, etc. , pp. 24-25.
2 On the other hand, Golden claimed, in November, 1767, and re-
peatedly in the following months, that at New York "a greater quan-
tity of Goods has been Run without paying Duties since the Repeal of
the Stamp Act than had been done in ten years before. " Letter Books,
vol. ii, pp. 133-134, 138, 148, 153, 163, 172.
* Note the table of penalties and seizures, quoted by Professor Chan-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 100 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Two conditions militated against the success of the Cus-
toms Board in wiping out smuggling. One was the extent
of the coastline to be watched. The other was the active
sympathy which the populace extended to the smugglers.
The importance of this latter factor was shown by the
peremptory treatment of those who were reckless enough
to reveal to a customs officer the secret of their neighbors'
prosperity. Thus, an informer cowered before a gathering
of merchants and inhabitants of New Haven in September,
1769, and humbly acknowledged his iniquity in attempting
to inform against Mr. Timothy Jones, Jr. , for "running
of goods. "' During the following month an informer at
Boston was tarred and feathered and paraded through the
principal streets ; z and three others of his kind in New
York received similar treatment --" to the great Satisfac-
tion of all the good Inhabitants of this City, and to the
great Terror of evil doers," as one loyal New Yorker
averred. * ,^
1<;r> produced collisions with the cus-
toms officials. While in discharge of his duty, Jesse Saville,
a tide waiter of the custom house at Providence, was viol-
ning, op. cit. , vol. iii, p. 89 n. Eloquent evidence of the prevalence of
smuggling as late as 1770 is shown in a survey of the customs districts
and ports, made, it would appear, for the Customs Board. This report
is entitled, "Ports of North America. " It shows clearly that wide
stretches of coast were free from proper customs supervision and
makes detailed recommendations for stricter oversight. Considerable
smuggling is also alleged in the plantation provinces at this period
Brit. Mus. Addl. Mss. , no. 15484 (L. C. Transcripts).
1 New London Gas. , Sept. 20, 1769; also Mass. Gas. 6r News Letter,
Oct. 5.
1 1bid. , Nov. 2, 9, 1769; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, pp. 259-260.
'Mass. Gas. & News Letter, Oct. 12, 1769. Golden wrote in January,
1768, to Grenville: "No man dare inform, so that whole cargoes have
been run without entry in the Custom House. " Letter Books, vol. H,
P- 153.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM IOI
ently assaulted and then tarred and feathered, in 1769. A
reward of fifty pounds sterling for the perpetrators of this
act was vainly offered by the Customs Board. 1 In July
of the same year, a mob at Newport dismantled and burnt
the revenue sloop Liberty, which had just brought into the
harbor two vessels suspected of smuggling. 2 "Both vessels
that were seized have since proceeded on their respective
voyages," noted the Newport Mercury laconically on July
22. At Philadelphia, the revenue officials attempted in
April, 1769, to get possession of about fifty pipes of Ma-
deira wine that had been imported without payment of
duties. Their efforts stirred up a mob which stole away the
booty from under their very noses and maltreated some
of the officers. Later, the merchants offered to restore
the wine; and, after some delay, they returned "not near
the Quantity that was taken" and, instead of Madeira,
"no better than mean Fyall [Fayal]. " A revenue em-
ployee who had been active in this affair went to Boston
to recuperate from his injuries, because, as he earnestly
avowed, "I could not think of tarrying among a sett of
People under my present circumstances whose greatest
pleasure would be to have an oppofrtunity] of burying
me. "8
Even from the plantation provinces came echoes of in-
dignation against the officiousness of customs officers and
the new powers of the vice-admiralty courts. Infringe-
ments of the acts of trade were comparatively rare in that
portion of British America; and it was the boast of the
1 Arnold, Rhode Island, vol. ii, p. 294.
* R. I. Col. Recs. , vol. vi, pp. 593-596; Gammel, W. , Samuel Ward (?
Libr. Am. Biog. , vol. ix), pp. 288-290. For instances of forcible im-
portation in Massachusetts and 'Rhode Island, vide Weeden, Ec. and
Soc. Hist, of New Engl. , vol. ii, p. 762.
1 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. x, pp. 611-617.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 102 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
wealthy Charleston merchant and factor, Henry Laurens.
that he had never intentionally violated them. Yet, in spite
of the efforts of the Customs Board to secure higher admin-
istrative efficiency, the customs officers at Charleston were
unprincipled and corrupt; and the merchants of that port
were subjected to petty tyrannies, from which the local
vice-admiralty court afforded no relief. Laurens himself
was put to great expense through the seizure on technical
charges in 1767 and 1768, of three of his vessels, two of
which were eventually released. A conservative from
temperamental as well as business reasons, his emotions
were, for the first time, deeply stirred to the defense of
so-called American liberties, and in 1769 he produced an
able controversial pamphlet setting forth his new views
under the title, Sow,? General Ofir"""ltintp nn American
custom house officers and Courts of Vice-Admiralty.
Thoroughly academic and unemotional as he hacT been in
his objections to the Stamp Act, he could write in 1769 to
a London friend tharX^ihe enormous created powers vested
in an American Court of Vice-Admiralty threatens future
generations in America with a curse tenfold worse than
the Stamp Act. 'JJ
The most important work performed by the Customs
Board was the breaking of the power of the smugglers at
Boston. This was accomplished only through a resort to
extreme measures. In the years immediately following
1766, there were a number of cases at Boston of forcible
landing of contraband goods, of rescue of lawful seizures,
and of mobbing of revenue officers. 2 John Robinson, one
of the Customs Board, in his testimony before the Privy
1 For this incident, vide Wallace, Henry Laurens, pp. 137-149. Vide
also Prov. Gas. , Oct. 3, 1767, July 23, 1768.
1 Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial, vol. v, no. 155. Vide also
Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 188.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM IC>3
Council in 1770, stated that he hesitated to say that "the
Disturbances may be properly called Riots, as the Rioters
appear to be under Discipline. "
Feeling unable to cope with the situation, the Customs
Board, in February, 1768, asked Commodore Hood at
Halifax for a public vessel to protect them in the discharge
of their functions. "We have every reason," they said,
"to expect that we shall find it impracticable to enforce
the execution of the revenue laws, until the hand of gov-
ernment is properly strengthened. At present, there is not
a ship-of-war in the province, nor a company of soldiers
nearer than New York. " 1 In answer to repeated requests,
the man-of-war Romney was stationed at Boston a few
months later. The board now pressed for additional ships
and for the presence of troops, but their requests failed of
effect.
Affairs came to a crisis a few months later, when John
Hancock's sloop Liberty arrived in port from Madeira with
a quantity of wine. A tidesman went on board and ob-
jected to the landing of any wine until entry was made at
the custom house; whereupon the fellow was heaved into
the cabin and kept there while the cargo was expeditiously
removed. On June 10, about a month later, the vessel was
seized by order of the Customs Board. A crowd assembled
and, in great uneasiness, watched the removal of the vessel
to within gun-range of the Romney. Soon they lost their
restraint; and, in the rioting that ensued, the custom-house
officers were assaulted and the houses of several of them
pelted, and other damage done. 2
1 Bancroft, G. , History of United States (Boston, 1876), vol. iv, p. 75.
1 The Liberty was condemned by the vice-adfniralty court. Bos.
Chron. , June 13, 1768; . Sears, L. , John Hancock (Boston, 1912), pp. 11o-
114; Brown, John Hancock His Book, p. 156; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? I04 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Alleging helplessness, the Customs Board retired to Castle
William and again renewed their demand for troops. This
time they had made good their case; two regiments arrived
on the scene about four months after the riot, and the
customs commissioners resumed their headquarters at
Boston. From this time forward Boston lost its importance
as a smuggling port; and the great centers of contraband
trade became New York and Philadelphia, with Newport
as a center of minor importance. 1
However jusrfiable the action may have appeared from
an administrative point of view, the British government
made a bad tactical error in sending soldiers to Boston.
The statesmanlike policy of maintaining a standing army
to protect the empire from foreign enemies had degenerated
into an employment of the troops as a military police to
enforce hated laws on the people themselves. The worst
fears of the radicals were vindicated. Their efforts and
those of the merchants were used for the next two years
to procure the removal of the troops. Sporadic outbreaks
of resistance to customs officials continued to occur. 2
Of greater interest and significance in the controversy
vol. iii, pp. 189-194. For Hancock's letters ordering the wine, vide
Brown, op. cit. , pp.
