validity to human Laws. If then the "MATTER OR THING" viz the
fixing Salaries to the Offices of the Judges of the Superior
Court as aforesaid, was such as threatned the Lives, Liberties
and Properties of the People, which we have the Authority of the
greatest Assembly of the Province to affirm, The Inhabitants of
this or any other Town had certainly an uncontrovertable right to
meet together, either in the Manner the Law has prescribed, or in
any other orderly Manner, joyntly to consult the necessary Means
of their own Preservation and Safety. The Petitioners wisely
chose the Rule of the province Law, by applying to the Selectmen
for a Meeting; and they, as it was their Dudty to do, followed
the same Rule and called a Meeting accordingly. We are therefore
not a little suprizd, that his Excellency, speaking of this and
other principal Towns, should descend to such an artful Use of
Words, that a "NUMBER of Inhabitants have assembled together, and
having ASSUMED the Name of legal Town Meetings" &c. Thereby
appearing to have a Design to lead an inattentive Reader to
believe, that no Regard was had to the Laws of the Province in
calling these Meetings, and consequently to consider them as
illegal & disorderly.

The Inhabitants being met, and for the Purpose aforesaid, the
Points determind, his Excellency says, "were such as the Law
gives the Inhabitants of Towns in their CORPORATE Capacity no
Power to act upon." It would be a sufficient Justification of the
Town to say, that no Law FORBIDS the Inhabitants of Towns in
their corporate Capacity to determine such Points as were then
determined. And if there was no positive legal Restraint upon
their Conduct, it was doing them an essential injury, to
represent it to the World as ILLEGAL. Where the Law makes no