Papers of John Adams, volume 20

From Richard Cranch

From George Walton

223 To John Adams from William Cranch, 24 January 1790 Cranch, William Adams, John
From William Cranch
Sir, Boston Jan. 24. 1790 Sunday.

I wrote you some time ago, & desired Mr Lovell, who told me he should see Mr Ames before he left Dedham, to forward it by him. Your Son Tom writes me that you have not recieved it. I shall enquire of Lovell what he did with it. It contained several letters, one to Mrs Smith, one for Louisa, one or more for my Aunt, one for Tom & one for Charles.1

Our Legislature is now sitting. A question has arisen, “whether persons holding offices under the national Government similar to those prohibited by our State Constitution, have a right to hold their seats in our Legislature.” A joint Committee was chosen, who reported that they had no right. The Report was not accepted by the Senate. The numbers were 13 to 11. The house accepted the Report by a majority of 137 to 24.— However, the Senate still think that they have a sole right to judge of the quatifications of their own members, & are determined to pay no regard to the judgment of the House. The Consequence is that Mr Gore has quitted his seat in the house, while Mr Jackson remains still in the Senate.2

Mr Gardner, the Member from Pownalboro’, entirely regardless of Popularity, as he himself says, & excited only by patriotic principles & passions, has been urging an enquiry into the State of the law & its Professors in this Commonwealth. On the first day of the Session, he inform’d the house that he intended the honour of making a motion on the next Tuesday. On tuesday, after a long Exordium upon Prejudice, which I suppose you have seen verbatim in the Centinel, he very pompously made his motion. The consideration of it was postponed till thursday, when in a verbose, florid speech he stated many of the pernicious practises of the lawyers & Justices of the Peace; he dwelt long upon the illegality of the Bar-Call or Bar meeting, which he affirmed to be a monster whose father was Tom Hutchinson—that it was no less than an illegal Conspiracy against the laws and that if the Attorney Genl. had done his duty, they would have been indicted long before this time. Here he betrayed his cloven-foot—for while he affirmed, as an instance of their arbitrary proceedings, that they would not permit his Son to be recommended to the Court, untill he had studied 3 years regularly, he discover’d the passion which kindled his Zeal. He said that the Bills of 224 Cost were unjust—that the law against Champerty had cut its own throat, by inflicting a punishment upon both the parties. After stating these & some other malpractises, he was desired to read to the house what amendments he had to propose. Upon which he produced a Bill consisting of 21. Chapters, each Chapter containing 8 or 10 sections, a detail of which he read to the house. The most remarkable heads were these, as well as I can remember. A clause against perjury—against Champarty & maintenance—a fee bill—against lawyers exercising the judicial powers of Justices of the Peace,—destroying the distinctions between contracts under Seal & those which are not—destroying special pleadings—permiting all kinds of demands between the same parties to be contained in one writ—preventing Estates tail from being created for the future, & providing a cheap & expeditious method of barring those already created—that Deeds shall be construed more liberally & according to the Intention of the parties—rendering the forms of Declarations more simple—In fact making every man a Compleat Lawyer. The bill is committed to a Committee of one member from each County,—3

The Govr. has appointed Mr Paine, to the office of Judge of the Supreme Court. An Attorny Genl is not yet nominated. It is said the vacancy is to be filled by Judge Sullivan. The other judge it is supposed will be either Mr Sprague or Judge Nathan Cushing. If Mr Sprague should be chosen the Office of Sheriff of the County of Worcester will be vacant & Mr Greenleaf is not disqualified for holding it again. But the popular opinion must be first sounded upon that point—4

I recd. a letter from your Son at Newbury Port, dated Jan. 18.5 he was then well— I have the Honor to be Sir your grateful & affecte. Nephew

Wm. Cranch.

RC (Adams Papers); endorsed: “W. Cranch. Jan. 24. 1790 / ansd March 14.”

1.

These letters, carried by Fisher Ames, have not been found.

2.

The controversy centered on the Mass. General Court’s interpretation of Art. 9 of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which stipulated that a member who accepted a state post could not simultaneously retain his seat in the state legislature. When Christopher Gore was named the first U.S. attorney for the district of Massachusetts, he faced pressure from local lawmakers to resign from the Mass. house of representatives. In his printed letter of 29 Jan., Gore argued that the article applied only to certain posts. His colleagues in the house of representatives disagreed, and ultimately Gore yielded his seat. Massachusetts senators thought differently on the question. In a 20 Jan. vote of 13 to 11, they permitted Jonathan Jackson to retain his seat while serving as a federal marshal ( ANB ; Massachusetts Centinel, 23, 30 Jan.).

3.

Lawyer John Gardiner (1731–1793), who represented Pownalborough, addressed the Mass. General Court regarding legal reforms on 19 Jan., and his speech was printed in the 225 Massachusetts Centinel the next day. Gardiner’s draft of an extensive new law code featured a chapter on champerty, the practice by which a third party carried on a lawsuit, at his own cost and risk, with the expectation of collecting a share of any profits made in the result. Looking to trim frivolous lawsuits, Gardiner accused several colleagues in the state legislature of engaging in champerty, which he deemed “wild, unconstitutional, and highly injurious to the great body of this people” ( AFC , 9:10–11; Massachusetts Centinel, 20, 27, 30 Jan.; Black, Law Dictionary ).

4.

Gov. John Hancock appointed Robert Treat Paine and Nathan Cushing to serve as associate justices on the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court in early 1790. John Sprague remained sheriff of Worcester County until 1792 (vol. 4:204; AFC , 7:176, 9:32; Boston Independent Chronicle, 28 June 1792).

5.

Not found.