Reprinted in Eyewitness to America Published in 1997 Edited by David Colbert ". . . .Men who injure and oppress the people under their administration provoke them to cry out and complain; and then make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions." Freedom of the press is the liberty to publish information, regardless of content, without the approval or control of government agencies. It is considered one of the most important rights in a democratic society. During the colonial period, however, there was no freedom of the press. Throughout Europe publication of information was tightly monitored in order to suppress public criticism of religious leaders and monarchs (heads of kingdoms or empires). According to English law, which was also the law of the American colonies, criticism of the government in any form was considered to be a crime called seditious libel (inciting rebellion against government through unjust or untrue statements). Even if the information was deemed to be true, it could be found libelous. Judges usually decided whether or not printed material was seditious. Freedom of the press was not a new concept in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The issue came to light soon after the invention of the printing press in the late 1400s. Official censorship of published materials began in 1501 when Pope Alexander VI (1431–1503; the pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church) required printers to submit all their work to the church for approval before publication. The pope took this step in order to prevent heresy (violation of church law), which was punishable by fine and excommunication (banishment from the church). In England the struggle for freedom of the press began in the early 1500s when unauthorized publications offended the monarchy. In 1534 a royal proclamation (order issued by the king) declared that all printed materials had to be licensed before being published. During the 1660s prominent English intellectuals such as the poet John Milton (1608–1674) and the philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) argued for greater freedom of the press. Although censorship (examining printed materials) laws were abolished in 1695, tight restrictions on the press were continued through seditious libel laws. In the early 1700s English critics John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon attacked the seditious libel laws and defended freedom of speech in a series of publications called Cato's Letters. An avid reader of Cato's Letters in the American colonies was James Alexander (1691–1756), the attorney general for New Jersey and New York (until 1738 these colonies shared the same government). Alexander was a political rival of William Cosby, the royal governor of New York. (A royal governor was appointed by the king of England.) In 1733 Alexander was joined by a group of lawyers, merchants, and other citizens to publish the New-York Weekly Journal. They intended the newspaper to be a political forum for colonists who opposed Cosby's administration. Alexander and his friends claimed that, in 1733, the governor had misused his power by dismissing Lewis Morris (1671–1746) as chief justice (principal judge of the colonial court) and replacing him with James De Lancey (1703–1760), a long-time Cosby ally. The backers of the Journal hired German-born printer John Peter Zenger (1697–1746) to be the publisher of the newspaper. The first issue appeared on November 5, 1733. Since Zenger had not fully mastered the English language, he did not contribute any major articles. Most of the pieces, which accused Cosby of governing without the will of the people, were written by Alexander. Yet Zenger was responsible for every word that was printed because he was the publisher. After the Journal had been running for nearly a year, the New York council, the group of men appointed to assist the royal governor in ruling the colony, decided to punish Zenger. They ordered the burning of four especially offensive issues of the newspaper and arrested Zenger. Showing a clear prejudice against the printer, the government set his bail (payment for freedom from imprisonment before a trial) at four hundred pounds (a sum of British money), plus two hundred pounds in bail insurance (money put aside in case bail money could not be raised). He could not raise the funds, so he remained in jail. For several days he was held in isolation, then he spent almost ten months behind bars. During this time Anna Zenger published the newspaper each week by smuggling her husband's instructions out of the jail. Alexander and his colleague William Smith volunteered to represent Zenger in court. Zenger was put on trial for criminal libel in April 1735. Alexander and Smith immediately challenged the appointment of De Lancey, who was obviously loyal to Cosby, as the judge in the trial. The Cosby administration then disbarred (expelled from the legal profession) Alexander and Smith and delayed the case until the following August. Cosby also removed Alexander from his position on the governor's council. At that point Alexander and Smith turned to Andrew Hamilton (1676–1741), speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly and the most prominent lawyer in the American colonies. When the trial resumed in August, Hamilton created a stir in the courtroom because no one knew he would be representing Zenger—he had been preparing for the trial in secret. Presenting the case for the New York government was Richard Bradley, the attorney general (chief legal officer). De Lancey was still the presiding judge.
In opening arguments Bradley presented the government's case, saying that Zenger was guilty of making false or injurious statements about Cosby and his administration. According to Bradley, Hamilton admitted that Zenger had published statements that fit the definition of libel. In fact, he said, "if such papers are not libels,. . . there can be no such thing as libel." Hamilton responded to Bradley by claiming that although Zenger had indeed published statements that were offensive to Cosby, he had simply printed the truth. Hamilton also pointed out that Bradley had not accused Zenger of printing any false statements.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BRADLEY: . . . The case before the Court is, whether Mr. Zenger is guilty oflibelling his Excellency the Governor of New-York, and indeed the whole Administration of the Government. Mr. Hamilton has confessed the printing and publishing, and I think nothing is plainer, than that the words in the information [newspapers; evidence against Zenger] are scandalous, and tend tosedition, and todisquiet the minds of the people of thisprovince. And if such papers are not libels, I think it may be said, there can be no such thing as a libel.
MR. HAMILTON: May it please your Honour [Chief Justice]; I cannot agree with Mr. Attorney. For tho' I freely acknowledge, that there are such things as libels, yet I must insist at the same time, that what my client is charged with, is not a libel; and I observed just now, that Mr. Attorney in defining a libel, made use of the words scandalous,seditious, and tend to disquiet the people; but . . . he omitted the word "false.". . .
Libelling: To make statements that are published without just cause and tend to expose another to public contempt
Sedition: Incitement of resistance against lawful authority
Disquiet: Disturb