This edition of the trial is, like all others, based on _A Brief
Narrative of the Case and Tryal of John Peter Zenger, Printer of the New
York Weekly Journal_, which was edited by James Alexander and printed by
the Zenger press in 1736.
Alexander’s is the only authentic version, for he was the sole person
close to the affair who undertook to prepare a written text. He was in
this, as in so many other ways, the formal apologist for his side. A
rival edition would have been logical, and could easily have been
produced by the men of the prosecution, but they never saw fit to
attempt their own vindication.
Indeed, Attorney General Bradley declined even to participate in
publication, withholding his notes and his brief when the Zenger camp
asked to see them, refusing any kind of advice, comment, correction, or
even objection; obviously because, staggered and humiliated by the
acquittal, he was in no mood to help embalm his courtroom defeat in
print. It is a pity that he allowed his case to go by default. He could
not, of course, have changed the pleading as we find it set down, except
possibly for minor points of emphasis or phraseology, but he might have
made a more respectable showing than he does in the bare synopses to
which the _Brief Narrative_ is reduced from time to time. True, he might
have appeared in an even worse light; perhaps he was afraid that that
was exactly what his opponents had in mind. Nevertheless, at the very
least he would have allowed the public and posterity to view what
happened from his angle of vision. He deliberately chose not to do so.
The defense had no inhibitions about publishing a full account of the
trial. The cheering and shouting had scarcely died away before Alexander
was at work copying out the arguments, arranging notes, gathering
information from those who could fill in the gaps for him.
He was the obvious man for the job. Writer, journalist, and editor, he
had been schooled in the task of integrating written material and in
working up connecting links and explanatory passages as they were
needed. Again, not only did he stand near the head of the legal
profession, so that he was fully equipped to juggle the problem of
libel, the textbook citations, and the technicalities and philosophy of
the law (essentials in dealing with any such trial), but he had an
unparalleled position at the center of the Zenger turmoil.
No one in New York knew more than James Alexander about how and why
Peter Zenger came to be tried before the Supreme Court of the Colony.
How could it have been otherwise when the _New York Weekly Journal_ was
under fire, and Alexander was the _Journal_’s editor? He himself had
approved, and perhaps written, the “libelous” issues on which the
prosecution was based. He himself would have been in the dock as
defendant instead of the printer if only the attorney general had been
able to get him indicted.
Alexander had been a leader of the Popular party from the beginning of
its struggle with Governor Cosby. He had conspired against the Governor,
fought him in the Courts and through the press, and used every weapon to
hand in an all-out effort to ruin him politically. There was hardly a
dissident movement in New York with which Alexander was not allied as
adviser or mentor. It was only natural that he should have been one of
Zenger’s lawyers, for he understood as few others could just what the
administration attack amounted to, and how a counterattack should be
developed. It is not difficult to imagine the intelligence and the
alertness with which he noted every word that was spoken at the trial.
He must have been the perfect spectator if ever there was one.
And all this does not exhaust the depths of his familiarity with the
incident. Until his disbarment he had been one of the counsel for the
defense, which made it his duty to draw up a brief in preparation for
his plea. He fulfilled his duty so well that when he was summarily
removed by order of Chief Justice Delancey he was able to hand over to
Andrew Hamilton a whole plan of campaign, and Hamilton (brought in
unprepared and at the last moment) relied on it substantially throughout
the proceedings.
It takes nothing from Hamilton, whose performance remains one of the
classical things in the history of American law, that Alexander gave him
the lead which he followed with such stunning success—that is, the
decision to base Zenger’s defense on the truth of the _Journal_
articles, and on that basis to ask the jury to bring in a verdict of
“Not guilty.” Alexander already held that guiding thread in his hand
months before Hamilton appeared on the scene. (Not that he invented the
idea, but he saw that it was the gambit to play.)
Hamilton’s own record of the trial went into the _Brief Narrative_, as
is indicated by this passage from one of the letters that the
Philadelphia barrister wrote to his friend and colleague in New York:
I have at last sent you my draft of Mr. Zenger’s trial.... I have had
no time to read it over but once since it was finished. I wrote it by
half-sheets and copied it as fast as I wrote. The meaning of all this
is to beg you to alter and correct it agreeable to your own mind.[36]
Thus Alexander even edited the text submitted by the defense attorney,
and the latter’s acceptance of the result shows how faithfully it
reflected the spoken word. Alexander clearly has given us the events of
August 4, 1735, almost to the life.
His account had an enormous success in his own time. Lawyers,
journalists, and political philosophers felt the impact of the acquittal
as something new, either hopeful or foreboding, and there sprang up a
market for the text in both America and England. Other editions began to
appear to meet the demand, several of them published in London as early
as 1738. The eighteenth century, when the problems involved were still
fighting issues, was the golden age of Zenger republication. One of
these versions, that issued by J. Almon of London in 1765, is generally
available today in the form of a reprint prepared by the Work Projects
Administration and sponsored by the California State Library for its
series of “Occasional Papers” (1940).
The nineteenth century saw two particularly useful editions in T. B.
Howell’s _State Trials_ (1816) and in Peleg W. Chandler’s _American
Criminal Trials_ (1841), the first following Alexander almost word for
word, the second modified and abridged. With the turn of the century
Livingston Rutherfurd made available a literal reprint of the _Brief
Narrative_ in his _John Peter Zenger, His Press, His Trial and a
Bibliography of Zenger Imprints_ (1904). Fifty years later Frank Luther
Mott did the same for our generation in _Oldtime Comments on Journalism_
(1954).
The first edition of any text (putting aside the corrupt or otherwise
unreliable) always has a presumption in its favor. This is how the
author saw his own work; this is the form in which he cast his own
thoughts; this is the union of his own logic with his own rhetoric.
Nothing else can begin to approach the authority and authenticity of his
imprimatur. Consequently it is mandatory for later editors to justify
tampering with the text instead of simply reproducing it.
The justification for the version here presented of James Alexander’s _A
Brief Narrative of the Case and Tryal of John Peter Zenger, Printer of
the New York Weekly Journal_ is that his text of 1736, however fine an
achievement for his own time, is not quite so satisfactory after the
lapse of two hundred years. Literary conventions have changed too much
for so characteristic a piece of eighteenth-century writing to be
allowed to remain as it is when modern standards of readability are in
question. Moreover, in places it shows signs of haste, or possibly even
of another writer at work. An instance is the opening passage, which
falls far below Alexander’s best style, and may be by someone else,
perhaps Zenger himself. Lastly, there is too much technical law for the
lay reader. On all these counts the _Brief Narrative_ needs overhauling
for our purposes.
This does not imply any distortion: the bulk of Alexander’s text is here
just as it came from Zenger’s press. Most of the pamphlet is still
perfectly clear, and it would be pointless to change anything simply for
the sake of change. More than that, it is preferable to keep to the
original wherever possible in order to catch something of the
eighteenth-century atmosphere.
Clarity is the touchstone. Nothing has been allowed to stand that might
trouble readers who are not familiar with obsolete usages. The simplest
revision is in the spelling, where I use “trial” instead of “tryal,”
“jail” instead of “gaol,” “public” instead of “publick,” etc. More
important is the change in punctuation. Like most publications of its
time, the _Brief Narrative_ shows a plethora of commas, colons, and
semicolons, a type of punctuation that tends to produce long,
complicated, tedious sentences. There are too many capitals and italics,
which today not only irritate the eye but also lose their force by doing
too much duty. In certain places the grammar calls for the addition or
omission of words.
A comparison of the following passages, the first two from the original,
the second pair from my edition of the text, will show exactly what
changes these considerations have led to:
As There was but one Printer in the Province of _New-York_, that
printed a publick News Paper, I was in Hopes, if I undertook to
publish another, I might make it worth my while; and I soon found my
Hopes were not groundless: My first Paper was printed, _Nov. 5th_,
1733. and I continued printing and publishing of them, I thought to
the Satisfaction of every Body, till the _January_ following: when the
Chief Justice was pleased to animadvert upon the Doctrine of Libels,
in a long Charge given in that Term to the Grand Jury, and afterwards
on the third _Tuesday_ of _October_, 1734. was again pleased to charge
the Grand Jury in the following Words. “_Gentlemen_; I shall
conclude....”
Be it remembered, that _Richard Bradly_, Esq: Attorney General of Our
Sovereign Lord the King, for the Province of _New-York_, who for Our
said Lord the King in this Part prosecutes, in his own proper Person
comes here into the Court of our said Lord the King, and for our said
Lord the King gives the Court here to understand and be informed, That
_John Peter Zenger_, late of the City of _New-York_, Printer, (being a
seditious Person; and a frequent Printer and Publisher of false News
and seditious Libels, and wickedly and maliciously devising the
Government of Our said Lord the King of this His Majesty’s Province of
_New-York_, under the Administration of His Excellency _William
Cosby_, Esq; Captain General and Governour, in Chief of the said
Province, to traduce, scandalize and vilify, and His Excellency the
said Governour, and the Ministers and Officers of Our said Lord, the
King of and for the said Province to bring into Suspicion and the ill
Opinion of the Subjects of Our said Lord the King residing within the
Province) the Twenty eighth Day of _January_, in the seventh Year of
the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord _George_ the second, by the Grace of
God of _Great-Britain_, _France_ and _Ireland_, King Defender of the
Faith, &c. at the City of _New-York, did falsly, seditiously and
scandalously_ print and publish, and cause to be printed and
published, a certain _false, malicious, seditious scandalous_ Libel,
entitled _The New-York Weekly Journal, containing the freshest
Advices, foreign and domestick_;
In the present edition, these passages read as follows:
As there was but one printer in the Province of New York who printed a
public newspaper, I was in hopes that if I undertook to publish
another I might make it worth my while. I soon found my hopes were not
groundless. My first paper was printed on November 5, 1733; and I
continued printing and publishing them, I thought to the satisfaction
of everybody, till the January following, when the Chief Justice was
pleased to animadvert upon the doctrine of libels in a long “charge”
given in that term to the grand jury. Afterwards, on the third Tuesday
of October, 1734, he was again pleased to charge the grand jury in the
following words: “Gentlemen, I shall conclude....”
Be it remembered that Richard Bradley, Attorney General of the king
for the Province of New York, who prosecutes for the king in this
part, in his own proper person comes here into the Court of the king,
and for the king gives the Court here to understand and be informed:
That John Peter Zenger, of the City of New York, printer (being a
seditious person; and a frequent printer and publisher of false news
and seditious libels, both wickedly and maliciously devising the
administration of His Excellency William Cosby, Captain General and
Governor in Chief, to traduce, scandalize and vilify both His
Excellency the Governor and the ministers and officers of the king,
and to bring them into suspicion and the ill opinion of the subjects
of the king residing within the Province), on the twenty-eighth day of
January, in the seventh year of the reign of George the Second, at the
City of New York did falsely, seditiously and scandalously print and
publish, and cause to be printed and published, a certain false,
malicious, seditious, scandalous libel entitled _The New York Weekly
Journal_.
The major departure from Alexander’s text remains to be mentioned, since
it is not involved in these passages—namely, the excision of some parts
and the summarizing of others. Summaries are used when a faster pace
seems advisable, for example at the start, when the preliminary
maneuverings of the Governor are described. The excisions concern mainly
the technicalities of the law. The long quotations from dusty legal
tomes, the appeal to long-past precedents, can be of little interest to
any except those trained in the law, and so only those passages have
been retained that are necessary to the intelligibility of the
arguments. But that in itself means a solid core, enough to show the
dialectic of the lawyers moved, how the prosecution set up positions,
and how the defense knocked them over.
Four fifths of the _Brief Narrative_ are here—including all the
passages-at-arms between Andrew Hamilton on the one side, and Bradley
and Delancey on the other, and all of the defense attorney’s splendid
peroration on liberty that clinched the acquittal for Peter Zenger.
NOTE: Editorial summaries are enclosed within brackets. Other changes
are not indicated, and anyone interested in them should consult the
original. In particular, blank lines do not necessarily stand for the
deletion of material: they are there mainly for convenience in
following the case step by step.