Reading Time: 3 minutes [378 words]

484 X,. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

T have no reason to suppose that there ever was one in Bos-
ton, at least among the natives of the country. But rioters
are in the same situation, as far as my argument is con-
cerned, and proper officers may suppress rioters, and so
may even private persons. The defense is not put on the sole
ground that they were acting in obedience to orders; but as
eitizens who were entitled to the protection of the laws as
much as any other citizens. The sentry being attacked in the
street by a mob, any persons had a right to go to his assist-
ance, and endeavor to suppress the riot. Suppose a press-
gang should come on shore in this town, and assault any
sailor, or householder in King street, in order to carry them
on board one of his majesty’s ships, and impress him without
any warrant, ss a seaman in hia majesty’s service, how far
do you suppose the inhabitants would think themselves war-
ranted by law to interpoge against that lawless press-gang!
T agree that such a prese-gang would be as unlawful an
assembly ag that was in King street. If they were to press
an inhabitant, and carry him off for a sailor, would not the
inhabitants think themselves warranted by law to interpose
in behalf of their fellow citizens! Now, gentlemen, if the
soldiers had no right to interpose in the relief of the sentry,
the inhabitants would have no right to interpose with regard
to the citizen, for whatever is law for a soldier is law for
a sailor and for a citizen, they all stand upon an equal foot-
ing in this respect, I believe we shall not have it disputed,
that it would be lawful te go into King street and help an
honest man there against the press-master.

Now, suppose you should have a jealousy in your minds,
that the people who made this attack on the sentry had
nothing more in their intention than to take him off his post,
and that was threatened by some; suppose they intended to
go a little farther, and tar and feather him, or to ride him
(as the phrase is in Hudibres), he would have had a good
Tight to have stood upon his defense, the defense of his
liberty, and if he eould not preserve that without hazard to
his own life, he would be warranted in depriving those of life

Related Posts