My desk encyclopedia allots the subject of this book these two brief
sentences: “Zenger, John Peter (1697-1749), American journalist, born
Germany. His acquittal in libel trial helped further freedom of press in
America.”
That represents a very sober acknowledgment of the fact that the Zenger
case established highly important precedents and is a landmark in the
history of the free press among the English-speaking peoples of the
world. With all this it is something of an anomaly that Peter Zenger
never learned to write good English. He was not a newspaper editor, but
only a printer who published the writings of others in an effort to earn
an honest living. It was the incidental cause he served, rather than his
professional work, that brought him his enduring fame.
He began his career as a printer’s apprentice. He worked for William
Bradford, the only printer in New York. Zenger became Bradford’s
partner, but soon established a business of his own, and since Bradford
published the weekly newspaper that supported the British governor, it
was only natural that those prominent members of the colony who opposed
the governor should contract with Peter Zenger to print and publish a
weekly paper for the opposition. Governor Cosby, whose word was law in
the British colony of New York, was an arbitrary individual. As a
personal representative of the British king he ran things pretty much as
he pleased. His arbitrary acts helped create an opposition known as the
Popular Party. Zenger’s weekly became the organ for this party. Like
other colonial newspapers of that day, it printed foreign news, literary
essays, so called poetry, and a small amount of advertising. But its
most interesting contents were the political articles attacking Governor
Cosby and the actions of his administration. All these editorial
comments were written by prominent members of the opposition party, but
they were always signed with pen names.
Zenger’s was the only name associated with the new opposition journal.
Governor Cosby knew very well that Zenger was only the printer and had
nothing to do with the paper’s policy. He also knew that James
Alexander, a brilliant leader of the political opposition, wrote or
edited most of the articles that were critical of the Cosby
administration. But the law, then as now, places responsibility on those
who publish a libel—not upon those who write it. As a newspaper
reporter, I myself once profited by that distinction. The _Brooklyn
Daily Eagle_ had to defend a one hundred thousand dollar libel suit for
an article I had written. The leader of a religious sect that had its
headquarters in Brooklyn was selling what it called Miracle Wheat. I
exposed the one dollar a pound charge for this wheat as a fraud upon the
public. That gave me the interesting task of helping the _Eagle’s_
lawyers prove with the help of agricultural experts the truth of my
printed assertion. For today, as in the days since Peter Zenger’s trial,
the truth of the libelous allegations mitigates damages and justifies
the libel.
It was not until the trial of Peter Zenger that his extremely able
lawyer created the notable precedent that the truth must be accepted as
justification for a libel and in mitigation of whatever damages might
have been suffered by the plaintiff. In the _Brooklyn Eagle_ Miracle
Wheat case the libel was clear and the court so instructed the jury,
which promptly brought in a verdict of six cents for the plaintiff. This
justified the _Eagle_ and humiliated the sellers of Miracle Wheat.
The Peter Zenger trial established one other notable precedent for libel
cases. This was that the jury before which he was tried had the right
not only to pass upon the fact but also the law in the case. The logic
and eloquence of Zenger’s attorney persuaded the jury that it had the
right to determine how and to what extent the letter and spirit of the
law could and should be applied in the Zenger case.
It is an interesting fact that the entire preceding history of the
freedom of the press among English-speaking peoples played its part in
the Zenger trial. The writings of Milton, Locke, Swift, Steele, Addison,
and Defoe were all quoted to justify the freedom with which Zenger’s
newspaper voiced its criticism of Governor Cosby and the way he
governed.
This willful executive first attempted to have Zenger indicted by a
grand jury, but the jury refused to act. Then he ordered Zenger’s paper
to be burned by the public hangman, and it was duly burned, though not
by the hangman. Finally the Governor secured the issue of a warrant for
Zenger’s arrest and the printer was put in jail on a charge of seditious
libel. Zenger’s journal missed a single issue. Then, thanks to his wife,
it appeared every Monday while Zenger was in jail. Zenger’s wife, Anna
Catherine, took over the print shop and saw that the paper was
published. She didn’t write the contents any more than her husband, but
she never complained that the printer’s family was suffering for others.
Nowadays it is a Constitutional right that “Excessive bail shall not be
required,” but in Zenger’s day there was no such rule. His bail was so
high that neither he nor his friends could meet it. The fact that he was
put in jail also helped sway public opinion in Zenger’s favor.
The record of the Zenger trial as it is developed in this book is one of
the notable case histories of American jurisprudence. Andrew Hamilton,
Zenger’s able attorney, made such a case for his client that it
attracted attention not only in the colonies but in England. New York
voted him the freedom of the city.
Governor Cosby did not long survive the rebuke he suffered by Zenger’s
acquittal. And here is a curious fact worth recalling: Andrew Hamilton,
whose notable defense of Peter Zenger has become an imperishable part of
the history of our free press, was also the architect of Independence
Hall in Philadelphia. The Hall still stands and so does the decision in
the Zenger case, both symbolizing enduring monuments to freedom.