Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A daily essay on history, freedom, and democracy, read aloud. Not from a historian or a journalist, but from a tour guide and traveler who has spent as much of life inside America as out of it. Field Notes on the Republic is one person learning out loud, writing toward an America that treats education as a virtue and means it when it calls itself a melting pot. New episodes every day.
In the late summer of 1735, a German immigrant printer named John Peter Zenger had been sitting in a New York jail for the better part of a year. His crime was not writing anything. He had set the type. The newspaper he printed, the New-York Weekly Journal, had spent months criticizing the royal governor of the colony, and the governor had decided the paper must be stopped and its printer punished. By every rule of law then in force, the governor was going to win.
He did not. On August 4, 1735, twelve jurors in a crowded New York courtroom did something the law did not permit them to do, and American press freedom traces a clear line back to that morning.
To understand why the verdict mattered, you have to understand how thoroughly the law was stacked against Zenger.
The charge was seditious libel. Under the English common law that governed the colonies, seditious libel meant publishing material that brought a government or its officials into disrepute. Here is the part that is hard for a modern reader to absorb: truth was not a defense. If the New-York Weekly Journal had said something accurate about Governor William Cosby, that did not help Zenger. It arguably hurt him. The reasoning, inherited from an old Star Chamber ruling, was that a true criticism was more dangerous than a false one, because people were more likely to believe it.
The trial itself was built to deliver one outcome. The presiding judge, Chief Justice James De Lancey, had been appointed by Cosby, the very governor the paper had attacked. The two lawyers who first stepped forward to defend Zenger were disbarred before the trial for questioning the judge's authority. And the role left to the jury was deliberately small. The judge would decide whether the words were libelous. The jury was to decide only one narrow question of fact: did Zenger print the papers? Since Zenger plainly had, the verdict looked settled before it began.
Into this walked Andrew Hamilton, a respected and elderly lawyer from Philadelphia, brought in quietly by Zenger's allies. Hamilton did something unexpected. He stood up and conceded the only fact the jury was supposed to be deciding. Yes, he said, Zenger printed the papers. There was no argument about it.
Then he turned to the jurors and asked them to consider something the judge had told them was none of their business: whether the words were true.
Hamilton's argument was not really a legal argument, because the law was not on his side. It was an appeal over the head of the law to the people sitting in the jury box. He told them the case was not about one poor printer, and not about New York alone. It touched, he said, every free man living under British government in America. It was, in his words, the cause of liberty.
He was asking the jury to do something the system did not allow. He was asking them to refuse to apply a law they believed was unjust. We would now call that jury nullification. The judge instructed the jurors, plainly and correctly, that the law gave them only the narrow question. They listened. They went out. They came back in a short while with a verdict of not guilty, and the courtroom, by every account, erupted.
It is worth being precise about what the Zenger trial did and did not do, because the truth is more interesting than the legend.
It did not change the law. Seditious libel remained on the books. Truth would not become a settled legal defense for decades. In strict terms, the jury's verdict bound no one and set no precedent.
What it changed was something harder to measure and, in the end, more powerful. It showed that a colonial jury, drawn from ordinary people, would not convict a printer for criticizing a government, even when a judge instructed them to. After Zenger, a royal official considering a seditious libel prosecution had to weigh the real chance that a jury would simply refuse to play its assigned part. That chance was a deterrent. Prosecutions grew rarer. A space opened, quietly, for the colonial press to operate, and into that space an American habit of a critical press began to grow.
Half a century later, when the First Congress was drafting the Bill of Rights, that habit was part of the inheritance. Gouverneur Morris, one of the Constitution's principal drafters, later called the Zenger trial the morning star of the liberty that revolutionized America. He was not describing a change in the statute books. He was describing a change in what people believed they were allowed to do.
The Zenger story is usually told as a story about the press, and it is one. But look at where the decision actually came from. It did not come from the bench, which was compromised. It did not come from the statute, which was hostile. It came from twelve ordinary people who decided that a law, applied to this printer on this morning, was wrong, and who had the nerve to act on that judgment together.
That is the quieter lesson, and the one I think is worth carrying. A free press in America did not begin with a grand declaration. It began with a jury. The institutions of self-government are often described as if they live in documents and courtrooms, in the words of statutes and the rulings of judges. Sometimes they do. But sometimes a freedom survives because a small group of citizens, asked to do the convenient thing, looked at it plainly and declined. The system gave the Zenger jury a narrow task. They understood the larger one. We are still living inside the difference.
Field Notes on the Republic was written and read by Michael Fowler. It was produced for Quorum (Supply Co.), an American civic purveyor. Music is "When Johnny Comes Marching Home," performed by the U.S. Military Academy Band, West Point.