MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.After the Court have declared their opinion, it is not good manners to insist upon a point in which you are overruled.
MR. HAMILTON.I will say no more at this time. The Court, I see, is against us in this point—and that I hope I may be allowed to say.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.Use the Court with good manners and you shall be allowed all the liberty you can reasonably desire.
MR. HAMILTON.I thank Your Honor. Then, Gentlemen of the Jury, it is to you that we must now appeal for witnesses to the truth of the facts we have offered, and are denied the liberty to prove. Let it not seem strange that I apply myself to you in this manner. I am warranted by both law and reason.
The law supposes you to be summoned out of the neighborhood where the fact is alleged to be committed; and the reason of your being taken out of the neighborhood is because you are supposed to have the best knowledge of the fact that is to be tried. Were you to find a verdict against my client, you must take it upon you to say that the papers referred to in the information, and which we acknowledge we printed and published, arefalse, scandalous, and seditious.
But of this I can have no apprehension. You are citizens of New York. You are really what the law supposes you to be, honest and lawful men; and according to my brief, the facts which we offer to prove were not committed in a corner. They are notoriously known to be true. Therefore in your justice lies our safety. And as we are denied the liberty of giving evidence to prove the truth of what we have published, I will beg leave to lay it down as a standing rule in such cases that the suppressing of evidence ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence; and I hope it will have that weight with you.
But since we are not admitted to examine our witnesses, I will endeavor to shorten the dispute with Mr. Attorney, and to that end I desire he would favor us with some standard definition of a libel by which it may be certainly known whether a writing be a libel, yes or no.
MR. ATTORNEY.The books, I think, have given a very full definition of libel.
MR. HAMILTON.Ay, Mr. Attorney, but what standard rule have the books laid down by which we can certainly know whether the words or signs are malicious? Whether they are defamatory? Whether they tend to the breach of the peace, and are a sufficient ground to provoke a man, his family, or his friends to acts of revenge: especially the ironical sort of words? What rule have you to know when I write ironically? I think it would be hard when I say, “Such a man is a very worthy honest gentleman, and of fine understanding,” that therefore I mean, “He is a knave or a fool.”
MR. ATTORNEY.I think the books are very full. It is said in Hawkins just now read, “Such scandal as is expressed in a scoffing and ironical manner makes a writing as properly a libel as that which is expressed in direct terms.” I think nothing can be plainer or more full than these words.
MR. HAMILTON.I agree the words are very plain, and I shall not scruple to allow (when we are agreed that the words are false and scandalous, and were spoken in an ironical and scoffing manner) that they are really libelous. But here still occurs the uncertainty which makes the difficulty to know what words are scandalous, and what are not. For you say that they may be scandalous, whether true or false.
Besides, how shall we know whether the words were spoken in a scoffing and ironical manner, or seriously? Or how can you know whether the man did not think as he wrote? For by your rule, if he did, it is no irony, and consequently no libel.
But under favor, Mr. Attorney, I think the same book, and under the same section, will show us the only rule by which all these things are to be known. The words are these, “which kind of writing is as wellunderstoodto mean only to upbraid the parties with the want of these qualities as if they had directly and expressly done so.” Here it is plain that the words are scandalous, scoffing, and ironical only as they areunderstood. I know no rule laid down in the books but this, I mean, as the words areunderstood.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.Mr. Hamilton, do you think it so hard to know when words are ironical or spoken in a scoffing manner?
MR. HAMILTON.I own it may be known. But I insist that the only rule by which to know is—as I do or canunderstandthem. I have no other rule to go by but as Iunderstandthem.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.That is certain. All words are libelous or not as they areunderstood. Those who are to judge of the words must judge whether they are scandalous, or ironical, or tend to the breach of the peace, or are seditious. There can be no doubt of it.
MR. HAMILTON.I thank Your Honor. I am glad to find the Court of this opinion. Then it follows that these twelve men mustunderstandthe words in the information to be scandalous—that is to say, false. For I think it is not pretended they are of theironicalsort. And when theyunderstandthe words to be so, they will say that we are guilty of publishing afalse libel, and not otherwise.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.No, Mr. Hamilton, the jury may find that Zenger printed and published those papers, and leave it to the Court to judge whether they are libelous. You know this is very common. It is in the nature of a special verdict, where the jury leave the matter of the law to the court.
MR. HAMILTON.I know, may it please Your Honor, thejury may do so. But I do likewise know that they may do otherwise. I know that they have the right beyond all dispute to determine both the law and the fact; and where they do not doubt of the law, they ought to do so. Leaving it to judgment of the court whether the words are libelous or not in effect renders juries useless (to say no worse) in many cases. But this I shall have occasion to speak to by and by.
Although I own it to be base and unworthy to scandalize any man, yet I think it is even more villainous to scandalize a person of public character. I will go so far into Mr. Attorney’s doctrine as to agree that if the faults, mistakes, nay even the vices of such a person be private and personal, and do not affect the peace of the public, or the liberty or property of our neighbor, it is unmanly and unmannerly to expose them either by word or writing. But when a ruler of a people brings his personal failings, but much more his vices, into his administration, and the people find themselves affected by them either in their liberties or properties, that will alter the case mightily; and all the things that are said in favor of rulers and of dignitaries, and upon the side of power, will not be able to stop people’s mouths when they feel themselves oppressed. I mean, in a free government.
MR. ATTORNEY.Pray, Mr. Hamilton, have a care what you say, don’t go too far. I don’t like those liberties.
MR. HAMILTON.Surely, Mr. Attorney, you won’t make any applications. All men agree that we are governed by the best of kings, and I cannot see the meaning of Mr. Attorney’s caution. My well-known principles, and the sense I have of the blessings we enjoy under His Majesty, make it impossible for me to err, and I hope even to be suspected, in that point of duty to my king.
May it please Your Honor, I was saying that notwithstanding all the duty and reverence claimed by Mr. Attorney tomen in authority, they are not exempt from observing the rules of common justice either in their private or public capacities. The laws of our mother country know no exemptions. It is true that men in power are harder to be come at for wrongs they do either to a private person or to the public, especially a governor in The Plantations, where they insist upon an exemption from answering complaints of any kind in their own government. We are indeed told, and it is true, that they are obliged to answer a suit in the king’s courts at Westminster for a wrong done to any person here. But do we not know how impracticable this is to most men among us, to leave their families (who depend upon their labor and care for their livelihood) and carry evidence to Britain, and at a great, nay, a far greater expense than almost any of us are able to bear, only to prosecute a governor for an injury done here?
But when the oppression is general, there is no remedy even that way. No, our Constitution has (blessed be God) given us an opportunity, if not to have such wrongs redressed, yet by our prudence and resolution we may in a great measure prevent the committing of such wrongs by making a governor sensible that it is in his interest to be just to those under his care. For such is the sense that men in general (I mean free men) have of common justice, that when they come to know that a chief magistrate abuses the power with which he is trusted for the good of the people, and is attempting to turn that very power against the innocent, whether of high or low degree, I say that mankind in general seldom fail to interpose, and, as far as they can, prevent the destruction of their fellow subjects.
And has it not often been seen (I hope it will always be seen) that when the representatives of a free people are by just representations or remonstrances made sensible of thesufferings of their fellow subjects, by the abuse of power in the hands of a governor, that they have declared (and loudly too) that they were not obliged by any law to support a governor who goes about to destroy a Province or Colony, or their privileges, which by His Majesty he was appointed, and by the law he is bound, to protect and encourage? But I pray that it may be considered—of what use is this mighty privilege if every man that suffers is silent? And if a man must be taken up as a libeler for telling his sufferings to his neighbor?
I know that it may be answered, “Have you not a legislature? Have you not a House of Representatives to whom you may complain?” To this I answer, we have. But what then? Is an Assembly to be troubled with every injury done by a governor? Or are they to hear of nothing but what those in the administration will please to tell them? And what sort of trial must a man have? How is he to be remedied, especially if the case were, as I have known to happen in America in my time, that a governor who has places (I will not say pensions, for I believe they seldom give that to another which they can take to themselves) to bestow can keep the same Assembly (after he has modeled them so as to get a majority of the House in his interest) for near twice seven years together? I pray, what redress is to be expected for an honest man who makes his complaint against a governor to an Assembly who may properly enough be said to be made by the same governor against whom the complaint is made? The thing answers itself.
No, it is natural, it is a privilege, I will go farther, it is a right, which all free men claim, that they are entitled to complain when they are hurt. They have a right publicly to remonstrate against the abuses of power in the strongest terms, to put their neighbors upon their guard against the craft or open violence of men in authority, and to assert withcourage the sense they have of the blessings of liberty, the value they put upon it, and their resolution at all hazards to preserve it as one of the greatest blessings heaven can bestow.
When a House of Assembly composed of honest freemen sees the general bent of the people’s inclination, that is it which must and will (I am sure it ought to) weigh with a legislature in spite of all the craft, caressing, and cajoling made use of by a governor to divert them from harkening to the voice of their country. As we all very well understand the true reason why gentlemen take so much pains and make such great interest to be appointed governors, so is the design of their appointment not less manifest. We know His Majesty’s gracious intentions toward his subjects. He desires no more than that his people in The Plantations should be kept up to their duty and allegiance to the crown of Great Britain, that peace may be preserved among them, and justice impartially administered; so that we may be governed so as to render us useful to our mother country by encouraging us to make and raise such commodities as may be useful to Great Britain.
But will anyone say that all or any of these good ends are to be effected by a governor’s setting his people together by the ears, and by the assistance of one part of the people to plague and plunder the other? The commission that governors bear while they execute the powers given them according to the intent of the royal grantor requires and deserves very great reverence and submission. But when a governor departs from the duty enjoined on him by his sovereign, and acts as if he were less accountable than the royal hand that gave him all that power and honor that he is possessed of, this sets people upon examining and inquiring into the power, authority, and duty of such a magistrate, and to comparing those with his conduct. And just as far as they findhe exceeds the bounds of his authority, or falls short in doing impartial justice to the people under his administration, so far they very often, in return, come short in their duty to such a governor.
For power alone will not make a man beloved, and I have heard it observed that the man who was neither good nor wise before his being made a governor never mended upon his preferment, but has been generally observed to be worse. For men who are not indued with wisdom and virtue can only be kept in bounds by the law; and by how much the further they think themselves out of the reach of the law, by so much the more wicked and cruel men are. I wish there were no instances of the kind at this day.
Wherever this happens to be the case of a governor, unhappy are the people under his administration, and in the end he will find himself so too, for the people will neither love him nor support him.
I make no doubt but there are those here who are zealously concerned for the success of this prosecution, and yet I hope they are not many; and even some of those, I am persuaded (when they consider to what lengths such prosecutions may be carried, and how deeply the liberties of the people may be affected by such means) will not all abide by their present sentiments. I say “not all,” for the man who from an intimacy and acquaintance with a governor has conceived a personal regard for him, the man who has felt none of the strokes of his power, the man who believes that a governor has a regard for him and confides in him—it is natural for such men to wish well to the affairs of such a governor. And as they may be men of honor and generosity, may, and no doubt will, wish him success so far as the rights and privileges of their fellow citizens are not affected. But as men of honor I can apprehend nothing from them. They will never exceed that point.
There are others that are under stronger obligations, and those are such as are in some sort engaged in support of the governor’s cause by their own or their relations’ dependence on his favor for some post or preferment. Such men have what is commonly called duty and gratitude to influence their inclinations and oblige them to go his lengths. I know men’s interests are very near to them, and they will do much rather than forgo the favor of a governor and a livelihood at the same time. But I can with very just grounds hope, even from those men (whom I will suppose to be men of honor and conscience too), that when they see the liberty of their country in danger, either by their concurrence or even by their silence, they will like Englishmen, and like themselves, freely make a sacrifice of any preferment or favor rather than be accessory to destroying the liberties of their country and entailing slavery upon their posterity.
There are indeed another set of men, of whom I have no hopes. I mean such who lay aside all other considerations and are ready to join with power in any shape, and with any man or sort of men by whose means or interest they may be assisted to gratify their malice and envy against those whom they have been pleased to hate; and that for no other reason than because they are men of ability and integrity, or at least are possessed of some valuable qualities far superior to their own. But as envy is the sin of the Devil, and therefore very hard (if at all) to be repented of, I will believe there are but few of this detestable and worthless sort of men, nor will their opinions or inclinations have any influence upon this trial.
But to proceed. I beg leave to insist that the right of complaining or remonstrating is natural; that the restraint upon this natural right is the law only; and that those restraints can only extend to what isfalse. For as it is truth alone thatcan excuse or justify any man for complaining of a bad administration, I as frankly agree that nothing ought to excuse a man who raises a false charge or accusation even against a private person, and that no manner of allowance ought to be made to him who does so against a public magistrate.
Truthought to govern the whole affair of libels. And yet the party accused runs risk enough even then; for if he fails in proving every tittle of what he has written, and to the satisfaction of the court and jury too, he may find to his cost that when the prosecution is set on foot by men in power it seldom wants friends to favor it.
From thence (it is said) has arisen the great diversity of opinions among judges about what words were or were not scandalous or libelous. I believe it will be granted that there is not greater uncertainty in any part of the law than about words of scandal. It would be misspending of the Court’s time to mention the cases. They may be said to be numberless. Therefore the utmost care ought to be taken in following precedents; and the times when the judgments were given, which are quoted for authorities in the case of libels, are much to be regarded.
I think it will be agreed that ever since the time of the Star Chamber, where the most arbitrary judgments and opinions were given that ever an Englishman heard of, at least in his own country; I say, prosecutions for libel since the time of that arbitrary Court, and until the Glorious Revolution, have generally been set on foot at the instance of the crown or its ministers. And it is no small reproach to the law that these prosecutions were too often and too much countenanced by the judges, who held their places “at pleasure” (a disagreeable tenure to any officer, but a dangerous one in the case of a judge). Yet I cannot think it unwarrantable to show the unhappy influence that a sovereign hassometimes had, not only upon judges, but even upon parliaments themselves.
It has already been shown how the judges differed in their opinions about the nature of a libel in the case of the Seven Bishops.[8]There you see three judges of one opinion, that is, of a wrong opinion (in the judgment of the best men in England), and one judge of a right opinion. How unhappy might it have been for all of us at this day if that jury had understood the words in that information as the Court did? Or if they had left it to the Court to judge whether the petition of the Bishops was or was not a libel? No, they took upon them (to their immortal honor!) to determine bothlawandfact, and tounderstandthe petition of the Bishops to beno libel, that is, to contain no falsehood or sedition; and therefore found them not guilty.
If then upon the whole there is so great an uncertainty among judges (learned and great men) in matters of this kind, if power has had so great an influence on judges, how cautious ought we to be in determining by their judgments, especially in The Plantations, and in the case of libels?
There is heresy in law as well as in religion, and both have changed very much. We well know that it is not two centuries ago that a man would have been burned as a heretic for owning such opinions in matters of religion as are publicly written and printed at this day. They were fallible men, it seems, and we take the liberty not only to differ from them in religious opinions, but to condemn them and their opinions too. I must presume that in taking these freedoms in thinking and speaking about matters of faith or religion, we are in the right; for although it is said that there are very great liberties of this kind taken in New York, yet I have heard of no information preferred by Mr. Attorney for any offenses of this sort. From which I think it is pretty clear thatin New York a man may make very free with his God, but he must take a special care what he says of his governor.
It is agreed upon by all men that this is a reign of liberty. While men keep within the bounds of truth I hope they may with safety both speak and write their sentiments of the conduct of men in power—I mean of that part of their conduct only which affects the liberty or property of the people under their administration. Were this to be denied, then the next step may make them slaves; for what notions can be entertained of slavery beyond that of suffering the greatest injuries and oppressions without the liberty of complaining, or if they do, to be destroyed, body and estate, for so doing?
It is said and insisted on by Mr. Attorney that government is a sacred thing; that it is to be supported and reverenced; that it is government that protects our persons and estates, prevents treasons, murders, robberies, riots, and all the train of evils that overturns kingdoms and states and ruins particular persons. And if those in the administration, especially the supreme magistrate, must have all their conduct censured by private men, government cannot subsist. This is called a licentiousness not to be tolerated. It is said that it brings the rulers of the people into contempt, and their authority not to be regarded, and so in the end the laws cannot be put into execution.
These, I say, and such as these, are the general topics insisted upon by men in power and their advocates. But I wish it might be considered at the same time how often it has happened that the abuse of power has been the primary cause of these evils, and that it was the injustice and oppression of these great men that has commonly brought them into contempt with the people. The craft and art of such men is great, and who that is the least acquainted with history or law can be ignorant of the specious pretences thathave often been made use of by men in power to introduce arbitrary rule, and to destroy the liberties of a free people?
[Here Hamilton went back to legal history to strengthen his position on the right of a defendant to plead truth in libel cases, and on the right of the jury to determine both the law and the fact—that is, to deliver a verdict of guilty or not guilty of libel, instead of leaving that culminating decision to the judges on the bench.]
[Here Hamilton went back to legal history to strengthen his position on the right of a defendant to plead truth in libel cases, and on the right of the jury to determine both the law and the fact—that is, to deliver a verdict of guilty or not guilty of libel, instead of leaving that culminating decision to the judges on the bench.]
This is the second information for libeling of a governor that I have known in America. The first, although it may look like a romance, yet as it is true I will beg leave to mention it.
Governor Nicholson,[9]who happened to be offended with one of his clergy, met him one day upon the road; and as usual with him (under the protection of his commission) used the poor parson with the worst of language, and threatened to cut off his ears, slit his nose, and at last to shoot him through the head. The parson, being a reverend man, continued all this time uncovered in the heat of the sun, until he found an opportunity to fly for it. Coming to a neighbor’s house, he felt himself very ill of a fever, and immediately writes for a doctor. And that his physician might the better judge of his distemper, he acquainted him with the usage he had received; concluding that the Governor was certainly mad, for that no man in his senses would have behaved in that manner.
The doctor unhappily showed the parson’s letter. The Governor came to hear of it. And so an information was preferred against the poor man for saying he believed the Governor was mad. It was laid down in the information to be false, scandalous, and wicked, and written with intent tomove sedition among the people, and to bring His Excellency into contempt. But by an order from the late Queen Anne there was a stop put to that prosecution, with sundry others set on foot by the same Governor against gentlemen of the greatest worth and honor in that government.
And may not I be allowed, after all this, to say that by a little countenance almost anything that a man writes may, with the help of that useful term of art called aninnuendo, be construed to be a libel, according to Mr. Attorney’s definition of it—to wit, that whether the words are spoken of a person of a public character or of a private man, whether dead or living, good or bad, true or false, all make a libel. For according to Mr. Attorney, after a man hears a writing read, or reads and repeats it, or laughs at it, they are all punishable. It is true that Mr. Attorney is so good as to allow it must be after the party knows it to be a libel, but he is not so kind as to take the man’s word for it.
Here were several cases put to show that although what a man writes of a governor were true, proper, and necessary, yet according to the foregoing doctrine it might be construed to be a libel. But Mr. Hamilton, after the trial was over, being informed that some of the cases he had put had really happened in this government, declared that he had never heard of any such; and as he meant no personal reflections, he was sorry he had mentioned them, and therefore they are omitted here.
MR. HAMILTON.If a libel is understood in the large and unlimited sense urged by Mr. Attorney, there is scarce a writing I know that may not be called a libel, or scarce a person safe from being called to an account as a libeler. For Moses, meek as he was, libeled Cain; and who is it that has not libeled the Devil?
For according to Mr. Attorney it is no justification to say that one has a bad name. Echard has libeled our good King William;[10]Burnet has libeled, among others, King Charles and King James; and Rapin has libeled them all.[11]How must a man speak or write; or what must he hear, read, or sing; or when must he laugh so as to be secure from being taken up as a libeler?
I sincerely believe that were some persons to go through the streets of New York nowadays and read a part of the Bible, if it was not known to be such, Mr. Attorney (with the help of hisinnuendos) would easily turn it into a libel. As for instance Isaiah 9:16: “The leaders of the people cause them to err; and they that are led by them are destroyed.” Should Mr. Attorney go about to make this a libel, he would read it thus: The leaders of the people (innuendo, the Governor and Council of New York) cause them (innuendo, the people of this Province) to err, and they (the people of this Province meaning) that are led by them (the Governor and Council meaning) are destroyed (innuendo, are deceived into the loss of their liberty), which is the worst kind of destruction.
Or if some person should publicly repeat, in a manner not pleasing to his betters, the 10th and 11th verses of the 56th chapter of the same book, there Mr. Attorney would have a large field to display his skill in the artful application of hisinnuendos. The words are: “His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant,... Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough.” To make them a libel there is, according to Mr. Attorney’s doctrine, no more wanting but the aid of his skill in the right adapting of hisinnuendos. As for instance: His watchmen (innuendo, the Governor’s Council and his Assembly) are blind, they are all ignorant(innuendo, will not see the dangerous designs of His Excellency). Yea, they (the Governor and Council meaning) are greedy dogs which can never have enough (innuendo, enough of riches and power).
Such an instance as this seems only fit to be laughed at; but I appeal to Mr. Attorney himself whether these are not at least equally proper to be applied to His Excellency and his ministers as some of the inferences andinnuendosin his information against my client. Then if Mr. Attorney is at liberty to come into court and file an information in the king’s name, without leave, who is secure whom he is pleased to prosecute as a libeler?
And give me leave to say that the mode of prosecuting by information (when a grand jury will not find a true bill) is a national grievance, and greatly inconsistent with that freedom that the subjects of England enjoy in most other cases. But if we are so unhappy as not to be able to ward off this stroke of power directly, yet let us take care not to be cheated out of our liberties by forms and appearances. Let us always be sure that the charge in the information is made out clearly even beyond a doubt; for although matters in the information may be calledformupon trial, yet they may be, and often have been found to be, matters ofsubstanceupon giving judgment.
Gentlemen: The danger is great in proportion to the mischief that may happen through our too great credulity. A proper confidence in a court is commendable, but as the verdict (whatever it is) will be yours, you ought to refer no part of your duty to the discretion of other persons. If you should be of the opinion that there is no falsehood in Mr. Zenger’s papers, you will, nay (pardon me for the expression) you ought, to say so—because you do not know whetherothers (I mean the Court) may be of that opinion. It is your right to do so, and there is much depending upon your resolution as well as upon your integrity.
The loss of liberty, to a generous mind, is worse than death. And yet we know that there have been those in all ages who, for the sake of preferment, or some imaginary honor, have freely lent a helping hand to oppress, nay to destroy, their country.
This brings to my mind that saying of the immortal Brutus[12]when he looked upon the creatures of Caesar, who were very great men but by no means good men. “You Romans,” said Brutus, “if yet I may call you so, consider what you are doing. Remember that you are assisting Caesar to forge those very chains that one day he will make you yourselves wear.” This is what every man (who values freedom) ought to consider. He should act by judgment and not by affection or self-interest; for where those prevail, no ties of either country or kindred are regarded; as upon the other hand, the man who loves his country prefers its liberty to all other considerations, well knowing that without liberty life is a misery.
A famous instance of this you will find in the history of another brave Roman of the same name, I mean Lucius Junius Brutus,[13]whose story is well known, and therefore I shall mention no more of it than only to show the value he put upon the freedom of his country. After this great man, with his fellow citizens whom he had engaged in the cause, had banished Tarquin the Proud (the last king of Rome) from a throne that he ascended by inhuman murders and possessed by the most dreadful tyranny and proscriptions, and had by this means amassed incredible riches, even sufficient to bribe to his interest many of the young nobility of Rome to assist him in recovering the crown; the plot beingdiscovered, the principal conspirators were apprehended, among whom were two of the sons of Junius Brutus. It was absolutely necessary that some should be made examples of, to deter others from attempting the restoration of Tarquin and destroying the liberty of Rome. To effect this it was that Lucius Junius Brutus, one of the consuls of Rome, in the presence of the Roman people, sat judge and condemned his own sons as traitors to their country. And to give the last proof of his exalted virtue and his love of liberty, he with a firmness of mind (only becoming so great a man) caused their heads to be struck off in his own presence. When he observed that his rigid virtue occasioned a sort of horror among the people, it is observed that he said only, “My fellow citizens, do not think that this proceeds from any want of natural affection. No, the death of the sons of Brutus can affect Brutus only. But the loss of liberty will affect my country.”
Thus highly was liberty esteemed in those days, that a father could sacrifice his sons to save his country. But why do I go to heathen Rome to bring instances of the love of liberty? The best blood in Britain has been shed in the cause of liberty; and the freedom we enjoy at this day may be said to be (in a great measure) owing to the glorious stand the famous Hampden,[14]and others of our countrymen, made against the arbitrary demands and illegal impositions of the times in which they lived; who, rather than give up the rights of Englishmen and submit to pay an illegal tax of no more, I think, than three shillings, resolved to undergo, and for the liberty of their country did undergo, the greatest extremities in that arbitrary and terrible Court of the Star Chamber, to whose arbitrary proceedings (it being composed of the principal men of the realm, and calculated to support arbitrary government) no bounds or limits could be set,nor could any other hand remove the evil but Parliament.
Power may justly be compared to a great river. While kept within its due bounds it is both beautiful and useful. But when it overflows its banks, it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before it, and brings destruction and desolation wherever it comes. If, then, this is the nature of power, let us at least do our duty, and like wise men (who value freedom) use our utmost care to support liberty, the only bulwark against lawless power, which in all ages has sacrificed to its wild lust and boundless ambition the blood of the best men that ever lived.
I hope to be pardoned, Sir, for my zeal upon this occasion. It is an old and wise caution that when our neighbor’s house is on fire we ought to take care of our own. For though (blessed be God) I live in a government where liberty is well understood and freely enjoyed, yet experience has shown us all (I am sure it has to me) that a bad precedent in one government is soon set up for an authority in another. And therefore I cannot but think it my, and every honest man’s, duty that (while we pay all due obedience to men in authority) we ought at the same time to be upon our guard against power wherever we apprehend that it may affect ourselves or our fellow subjects.
I am truly very unequal to such an undertaking on many accounts. You see that I labor under the weight of many years, and am bowed down with great infirmities of body. Yet, old and weak as I am, I should think it my duty, if required, to go to the utmost part of the land where my services could be of any use in assisting to quench the flame of prosecutions upon informations, set on foot by the government to deprive a people of the right of remonstrating (and complaining too) of the arbitrary attempts of men in power.
Men who injure and oppress the people under their administrationprovoke them to cry out and complain, and then make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions. I wish I could say that there were no instances of this kind.
But to conclude. The question before the Court and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, is not of small or private concern. It is not the cause of one poor printer, nor of New York alone, which you are now trying. No! It may in its consequence affect every free man that lives under a British government on the main of America. It is the best cause. It is the cause of liberty. And I make no doubt but your upright conduct this day will not only entitle you to the love and esteem of your fellow citizens, but every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you as men who have baffled the attempt of tyranny, and by an impartial and uncorrupt verdict have laid a noble foundation for securing to ourselves, our posterity, and our neighbors, that to which nature and the laws of our country have given us a right—the liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power (in these parts of the world at least) by speaking and writing truth.
Here Mr. Attorney observed that Mr. Hamilton had gone very much out of the way, and had made himself and the people very merry; but that he had been citing cases not at all to the purpose. All that the jury had to consider was Mr. Zenger’s printing and publishing two scandalous libels that very highly reflected on His Excellency and the principal men concerned in the administration of this government—which is confessed. That is, the printing and publishing of the journals set forth in the information is confessed. He concluded that as Mr. Hamilton had confessed the printing, and there could be no doubt but they were scandalouspapers highly reflecting upon His Excellency and on the principal magistrates in the Province—therefore he made no doubt but that the jury would find the defendant guilty, and would refer to the Court for their directions.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.Gentlemen of the Jury: The great pains Mr. Hamilton has taken to show how little regard juries are to pay to the opinion of judges, and his insisting so much upon the conduct of some judges in trials of this kind, is done no doubt with a design that you should take but very little notice of what I might say upon this occasion. I shall therefore only observe to you that as the facts or words in the information are confessed, the only thing that can come in question before you is whether the words as set forth in the information make a libel. And that is a matter of law, no doubt, and which you may leave to the Court.
MR. HAMILTON.I humbly beg Your Honor’s pardon, I am very much misapprehended if you suppose that what I said was so designed.
Sir, you know I made an apology for the freedom that I found myself under a necessity of using upon this occasion. I said there was nothing personal designed. It arose from the nature of our defense.
The jury withdrew, and returned in a small time. Being asked by the clerk whether they were agreed on their verdict, and whether John Peter Zenger was guilty of printing and publishing the libels in the information mentioned, they answered by Thomas Hunt, their foreman, “Not guilty.” Upon which there were three huzzas in the hall, which was crowded with people; and the next day I was discharged from my imprisonment.
At a Common Council held at the City Hall on Tuesday, September 16, 1735:
“Ordered, that Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, barrister-at-law, be presented with the Freedom of this Corporation.”
At a Common Council held at the City Hall on Monday, September 29, 1735: Paul Richards (Mayor), the Recorder, aldermen, and assistants of the City of New York, convened in Common Council.
“To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting.
“Whereashonor is the just reward of virtue, and public benefits demand a public acknowledgment;
“We therefore, under a grateful sense of the remarkable service done to the inhabitants of this City and Colony by Andrew Hamilton of Pennsylvania, barrister-at-law—by his learned and generous defense of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the press in the case of John Peter Zenger, lately tried on an information exhibited in the Supreme Court of this Colony—do by these presents bear to the said Andrew Hamilton the public thanks of the Freemen of this Corporation for that signal service which he cheerfully undertook under great indisposition of body and generously performed, refusing any fee or reward;
“And in testimony of our great esteem for his person, and sense of his merit, do hereby present him with the Freedom of this Corporation.
“These are therefore to certify and declare that the said Andrew Hamilton is hereby admitted, received, and allowed a Freeman of the said City; to have, hold, enjoy, and partake of all the benefits, liberties, privileges, freedoms, and immunities whatsoever granted or belonging to a Freeman and Citizen of the same City.
“In testimony whereof, the Common Council of the City, in Common Council assembled, have caused the Seal of the City to be hereunto affixed this twenty-ninth day of September, Anno Domini one thousand seven hundred and thirty-five.”
The New York Weekly JournalCovers an Election
The Westchester election in which Lewis Morris won his most satisfying victory over Governor Cosby took place on the green of St. Paul’s Church, Eastchester, on October 29, 1733. Whoever wrote theJournal’sstory about the election was no mean hand at covering the news, as the following extracts will show:
The Westchester election in which Lewis Morris won his most satisfying victory over Governor Cosby took place on the green of St. Paul’s Church, Eastchester, on October 29, 1733. Whoever wrote theJournal’sstory about the election was no mean hand at covering the news, as the following extracts will show:
On this day Lewis Morris, late Chief Justice of this Province, was by a great majority of voices elected a Representative for the County of Westchester.
This being an election of great expectation, and wherein the court and country’s interest was exerted (as is said) to the utmost, I shall give my readers a particular account of it as I had it from a person that was present at it.
Nicholas Cooper, high sheriff of the said county, having by papers affixed to the church of Eastchester and other public places given notice of the day and place of election, without mentioning any time of the day when it was to be done, made the electors on the side of the late judge very suspicious that some fraud was intended; to prevent which about fifty of them kept watch upon and about the green at Eastchester (the place of election) from 12 o’clock the night before until the morning of that day.
The other electors beginning to move on Sunday afternoon and evening so as to be at New Rochelle by midnight, their way lay through Harrison’s Purchase, the inhabitants of which providedfor their entertainment as they passed, each house in their way having a table plentifully covered for that purpose. About midnight they all met at the house of William Lecount in New Rochelle, whose house not being large enough to entertain so great a number, a large fire was made in the street, by which they sat until daylight, at which time they began to move. They were joined on the hill at the east end of the town by about seventy horse of the electors of the lower part of the county, and then proceeded towards the place of election in the following order.
First rode two trumpeters and three violins; next four of the principal freeholders, one of whom carried a banner on one side of which was affixed in gold capitalsKING GEORGE, and on the other, in like golden capitals,LIBERTY AND LAW; next followed the candidate, Lewis Morris, late Chief Justice of this Province; then two colors; and at sunrise they entered upon the green of Eastchester, the place of the election, followed by about three hundred horse of the principal freeholders of the county (a greater number than had ever appeared for one man since the settlement of that county).
About eleven of the clock appeared the candidate of the other side, William Forster, schoolmaster, appointed by the Society for Propagation of the Gospel, and lately made by commission from His Excellency (the present Governor) Clerk of the Peace and Common Pleas in that county; which commission it is said he purchased for the valuable consideration of one hundred pistoles given the Governor. Next to him came two ensigns borne by two of the freeholders; then followed the Honorable James Delancey, Chief Justice of the Province of New York, and the Honorable Frederick Philipse, second judge of the said Province and Baron of the Exchequer, attended by about one hundred seventy horse of the freeholders and friends of the said Forster. The two judges entered the green on the east side, and as they rode twice around it their greeting was “No land tax!”as they passed. The second judge very civilly saluted the late Chief Justice by taking off his hat, which the late judge returned in the same manner.
About an hour after the high sheriff came to town finely mounted, the housings and holster caps being scarlet richly laced with silver.... Upon his approach the electors on both sides went into the green where they were to elect; and after having read His Majesty’s writ he bade the electors to proceed to the choice, which they did. A great majority appeared for Mr. Morris, upon which a poll was demanded, but by whom is not known to the relator, though it was said by many to be done by the sheriff himself. Morris, the candidate, several times asked the sheriff upon whose side the majority appeared, but could get no other reply but that a poll must be had.
Accordingly, after about two hours’ delay in getting benches, chairs, and tables, they began to poll. Soon after one of those called Quakers, a man of known worth and estate, came to give his vote for the late judge. Upon this Forster and the two Fowlers, Moses and William, chosen by him to be inspectors, questioned his having an estate, and required of the sheriff to tender him the Book to swear in due form of law; which he refused to do, but offered to take his solemn affirmation, which by both the laws of England and the laws of this Province was indulged to the people called Quakers, and had always been practiced from the first election of Representatives in this Province to this time, and never refused. But the sheriff was deaf to all that could be alleged on that side; and notwithstanding that he was told by both the late Chief Justice and James Alexander, one of His Majesty’s Council and counsellor-at-law, and by William Smith, counsellor-at-law, that such a procedure was contrary to law and a violent attempt on the liberties of the people, he still persisted in refusing the said Quaker to vote; and in like manner did refuse seven and thirty Quakers more, men of known and visible estates.About eleven o’clock that night the poll was closed, and it stood thus:
So that the late Chief Justice carried it by a great majority without the Quakers.
The indentures being sealed, the whole body of electors waited on their new Representative to his lodgings with trumpets sounding and violins playing; and in a little time took their leave of him. Thus ended the Westchester election, to the general satisfaction.
New York, November 5.
On Wednesday the 31st of October the late Chief Justice, but new Representative for the County of Westchester, landed in this city about five o’clock in the evening at the ferry stairs. On his landing he was saluted by a general fire of the guns from the merchant vessels lying in the road; and was received by great numbers of the most considerable merchants and inhabitants of this city, and by them, with loud acclamations of the people as he walked the streets, conducted to the Black Horse Tavern, where a handsome entertainment was prepared for him at the charge of the gentlemen who received him. In the middle of one side of the room was fixed a tabulet with golden capitals,KING GEORGE, LIBERTY AND LAW.