# Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania: Excerpt **URL:** **By** John Dickinson **Published:** November 30, 1767 --- Dickinson writes on the importance of opposing the Townshend Acts, which threatened the sovereignty of the Thirteen Colonies. _In this excerpt from the first of John Dickinson’s _Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies_, Dickinson contends that unilateral parliamentary taxation represents a complete repudiation of colonial sovereignty because taxation is an expression of the broader authority to compel compliance and punish disobedience. The first in a series of twelve open letters, it was dated November 5th, 1767, the seventy-ninth anniversary of the landing of William the Third at Torbay, but was initially published in the _Pennsylvania Chronicle and Universal Advertiser_ on November 30th. Subsequent installments followed weekly._ _The_ [_full text of Dickinson's _Letters](http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/690) _can be found at the Online Library of Liberty._ With a good deal of surprise I have observed, that little notice has been taken of an act of parliament, as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies, as the _Stamp Act_ was: I mean the act for suspending the legislation of _New York._ The assembly of that government complied with a former act of parliament, requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops in _America,_ in every particular, I think, except the articles of salt, pepper and vinegar. In my opinion they acted imprudently, considering all circumstances, in not complying so far as would have given satisfaction, as several colonies did: But my dislike of their conduct in that instance, has not blinded me so much, that I cannot plainly perceive, that they have been punished in a manner pernicious to _American_ freedom, and justly alarming to all the colonies. If the _British_ parliament has legal authority to issue an order, that we shall furnish a single article for the troops here, and to compel obedience to _that_ order, they have the same right to issue an order for us to supply those troops with arms, clothes, and every necessary; and to compel obedience to _that_ order also; in short, to lay _any burthens_ they please upon us. What is this but _taxing_ us at a _certain sum,_ and leaving to us only the _manner_ of raising it? How is this mode more tolerable than the _Stamp Act?_ Would that act have appeared more pleasing to _Americans,_ if being ordered thereby to raise the sum total of the taxes, the mighty privilege had been left to them, of saying how much should be paid for an instrument of writing on paper, and how much for another on parchment? An act of parliament, commanding us to do a certain thing, if it has any validity, is a _tax_ upon us for the expense that accrues in complying with it; and for this reason, I believe, every colony on the continent, that chose to give a mark of their respect for _Great Britain,_ in complying with the act relating to the troops, cautiously avoided the mention of that act, lest their conduct should be attributed to its supposed obligation. The matter being thus stated, the assembly of _New York_ either had, or had not, a right to refuse submission to that act. If they had, and I imagine no _American_ will say they had not, then the parliament had _no right_ to compel them to execute it. If they had not _this right,_ they had _no right_ to punish them for not executing it; and therefore _no right_ to suspend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of _New York_ cannot be legally taxed but by their own representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privilege of legislation, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in such a case, of the privilege of legislation, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny their assent to any impositions, that shall be directed? Or what signifies the repeal of the _Stamp Act,_ if these colonies are to lose their _other_ privileges, by not tamely surrendering _that_ of taxation? There is one consideration arising from this suspension, which is not generally attended to, but shows its importance very clearly. It was not _necessary_ that this suspension should be caused by an act of parliament. The crown might have restrained the governor of _New York,_ even from calling the assembly together, by its prerogative in the royal governments. This step, I suppose, would have been taken, if the conduct of the assembly of _New York_ had been regarded as an act of disobedience _to the crown alone;_ but it is regarded as an act of “disobedience to the authority of the British Legislature.” This gives the suspension [1](#_ftn1) a consequence vastly more affecting. It is a parliamentary assertion of the _supreme authority_ of the _British_ legislature over these colonies, in _the point of taxation,_ and is intended to compel _New York_ into a submission to that authority. It seems therefore to me as much a violation of the liberties of the people of that province, and consequently of all these colonies, as if the parliament had sent a number of regiments to be quartered upon them till they should comply. For it is evident, that the suspension is meant as a _compulsion;_ and the _method_ of compelling is totally indifferent. It is indeed probable, that the sight of redcoats, and the hearing of drums, would have been most alarming; because people are generally more influenced by their eyes and ears, than by their reason. But whoever seriously considers the matter, must perceive that a dreadful stroke is aimed at the liberty of these colonies. I say, of these colonies; for the cause of _one_ is the cause of _all._ If the parliament may lawfully deprive _New York_ of any of _her_ rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of _their_ rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. _To divide, and thus to destroy,_ is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union. He certainly is not a wise man, who folds his arms, and reposes himself at home, viewing, with unconcern, the flames that have invaded his neighbor’s house, without using any endeavors to extinguish them. When Mr. _Hampden’s_ ship money case, for _Three Shillings_ and _Four-pence,_ was tried, all the people of _England,_ with anxious expectation, interested themselves in the important decision; and when the slightest point, touching the freedom of _one_ colony, is agitated, I earnestly wish, that _all the rest_ may, with equal ardor, support their sister. Very much may be said on this subject; but I hope, more at present is unnecessary. 1. This refers to the New York Restraining Act, part of the Townshend Acts which suspended the New York Assembly until it complied with the Quartering Act. [↩](#_ftnref1)