Family-histories and genealogies : containing a series of ...

(!^fltren=3^oJi«son
And, as to preserving the people from the violence of the bordering
Indians, he says :
" This is worse and worse. The militia of the colonies is doubtless sufficient
to defend us from the violences of the Indians in times of peace. This we judge upon
trials made—the surest test. They were so in the days of our fathers, when their
enemies were near ten times as many, and their militia an hundred times less. . . ."
But the colonies, it was said, would not exert themselves proportion-
ately : " some will do much, and some little or nothing at all." To this
Johnson replies :
" But is it not more reasonable to state and require the proportion of those who
will do little, than so heavily to tax the whole ? Some, 'tis allowed, have done much,
yes, beyond their abilities ;
and must they now be subject to a heavy, perpetual, end-
less tax, equal to those who have done little ? Where is the generosity or justice of
this ? Some have done little ; but have they forfeited their essential rights as
Englishmen by it—such as their right of taxing themselves, or of trial by juries ?
by what law of reason ? If not, why are they so punished ? Or have they, or can
such incorporate bodies forfeit such privileges for their posterity, that they also shall
be disfranchised of their birthright privileges ? No, the contrary (if I mistake not)
was fully proved in the trial of the London Charter. And more—can they forfeit for
all the other governments in America, who have no more hand in their transgression
than any of the corporations in G. Britain, that they must all suffer with them, they
that have done much, in doing much, as well as they who have done little, for their
doing little ? . . . Good
God !
where
do such sovereign measures tend, and
where may they end ? Supposing it tried in the kingdom of Ireland, or Great Britain,
upon some delinquency found in some of the cities or corporations—the essential
rights of one and all must be superceeded and vacated, and the powers of the courts
of admiralty be extended to cases belonging to the courts of common pleas ; and
the
privileges of juries denied in jury actions—would it go down in either of these king-
doms? .
. . 'Tis happy that this rule of administration was not adopted and
practised upon in the late rebellion, or it might have proved fatal to all the charters
and corporations in Great Britain. . . ."
335