in reply
to which he could only say: "Mr. Hancock, I believe, is justifiable,
but I am not certain whether he is strictly so." Justifiable or not,
Mr. Hancock would not wish to see the entire tea trade of America in the
hands of the East India Company.

And indeed to whose interest would it be to have an English company
granted a monopoly of a thriving branch of American trade? To those,
doubtless, who were the consignees of the Company, such as the sons of
Thomas Hutchinson, or Mr. Abram Lott of New York. Certainly no private
merchant "who is acquainted with the operation of a monopoly... will send
out or order tea to America when those who have it at first hand send
to the same market." And therefore, since the Company have the whole
supply, America will "ultimately be at their mercy to extort what price
they please for their tea. And when they find their success in this
article, they will obtain liberty to export their spices, silks,
etc." This was the light in which the matter appeared to the New York
Committee of Correspondence.

John Dickinson saw the matter in the same light, a light which his
superior abilities enabled him to portray in more lurid colors. The
conduct of the East India Company in Asia, he said,

"has given ample proof how little they regard the laws of nations,
the rights, liberties, or lives of men. They have levied war, excited
rebellions, dethroned princes, and sacrificed millions for the sake of
gain. The revenues of mighty kingdoms have centered in their coffers.
And these not being sufficient to glut their avarice, they have, by the
most unparalleled barbarities, extortions, and monopolies, stripped the
miserable inhabitants of their property and reduced whole provinces to
indigence and ruin.... Thus having drained the sources of that immense
wealth... they now, it seems, cast their eyes on America, a new theater,
whereon to exercise their talents of rapine, oppression, and cruelty.
The monopoly of tea, is, I dare say, but a small part of the plan they
have formed to strip us of our property. But thank God we are not Sea
Poys, nor Marattas, but British subjects, who are born to liberty, who
know its worth, and who prize it high."

For all of these reasons, therefore--because they were in principle
opposed to taxation without consent, and by interest opposed to an
English company monopolizing the tea trade, and perhaps because they
desired to give a signal demonstration of the fact that