James Otis The Pre-Revolutionist | Page 7

years past."
The writer of this well-timed communication then adds in proof of his
position, the names of several distinguished jurists who postponed the
beginning of their legal studies, or at least their legal practice, to a time
of life quite beyond the conventional student period. Mr. Otis then
declares his conviction that a young man may well procrastinate his
legal studies until he shall have attained the age of thirty or even of

forty years. He declares his belief that such postponement will as a rule
lead to better result than can be attained by a youth who begins at
twenty, however brilliant his genius may be.
This view of the case was with James Otis both theory and practice. He
began his legal studies in 1745. In that year he became a law student
under the tuition of Jeremiah Gridley who at that time was already
regarded as one of the most able and accomplished lawyers in
Massachusetts. Preceptor and student were at the first in accord in their
political and social principles. At the time of the young man's law
course, Gridley was a member of the General Court of Massachusetts.
He belonged to the party called Whig; for the political jargon of Great
Britain had infected the Americans also, and they divided according to
the names and principles of the British partisans of the period.
Judge Gridley, while he remained on the bench, took sides with the
colonists in their oncoming contention with the mother country.
Afterwards, however, by accepting the appointment of Attorney
General he became one of the king's officers, and it was in this relation
that he was subsequently brought face to face with his distinguished
pupil in the trial of the most remarkable case which preceded the
Revolutions.
Mr. Otis devoted two years of time to his legal studies before beginning
the practice of his profession. The study of law at that time was much
more difficult than at the present day. The student was obliged to begin
de novo with the old statutes and decisions, and to make up the science
for himself by a difficult induction, which not many young men were
able to do successfully.
Law text-books were virtually unknown. Otis did not even have access
to "Blackstone's Commentaries." No authoritative works on evidence or
pleading existed in the English language.
The student must get down his Acts of Parliament, his decisions of the
King's Bench, his Coke, his black-letter dissertations on the common
law, and out of these construct the best he could a legal system for
himself. To this work Mr. Otis devoted himself from 1745 to 1747,
after which he left the office of Judge Gridley and went to Plymouth,
where he applied for admission to the bar, and was accepted by the
court. He began to practice in 1748--the year of the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, when the political and historical status of Europe was

again fixed for a brief period.
The young attorney almost immediately took rank at the Plymouth bar.
The old records of the court at that place still show the frequent
appearance of Otis for one or the other of the parties. In this manner
were passed the years 1748 and 1749. It does not appear that at this
time he concerned himself very much with the affairs of the town or the
larger affairs of the commonwealth. The tax records show his name
with an entry to the effect that in 1748 he estimated his personal estate
at twenty pounds besides his "faculty," by which was meant, his
professional value.
A few incidents of this period in Otis's life have come down by
tradition. He soon made a favorable impression on the court and bar.
He gained the good opinion of his fellows for both ability and integrity
of character. This reputation he carried with him to Boston, whither he
removed early in the year 1750. He had already acquired sufficient
character to bring his services into requisition at places somewhat
distant from Plymouth.
His reception in Boston was accordingly favorable. Beyond the limits
of the colony he became known as an advocate. He was sent for in
important cases, and showed such signal ability as to attract the
admiring attention of both court and people. Already at the conclusion
of his twenty-fifth year he was a young man of note, rising to
eminence.
There was good ground for this reputation in both his principles of
conduct and his legal abilities. From the first he avoided the littleness
and quibble which are the bane of the bar. He had a high notion of what
a lawyer should be and of the method and spirit in which he should
conduct his cases. He had as much dignity as audacity, a sense of
justice as