Page images
PDF
EPUB

approved by the superintendent of common schools. By a law of 1841, each academy receives from the treasury a sum of about two hundred and fifty dollars; which, together with an equal amount contributed by the founders and patrons of the institutions, is applied to the purchase of text-books, globes, maps, and philosophical apparatus.

During the Dutch government, no press was established; and so late as 1686, Governor Dongan was instructed to allow no such establishment in the colony.*

The great English revolution of 1688, and the accession of William and Mary, were hailed with enthusiasm in the colonies, and awakened in New England and New York an earnest desire to repossess the rights and franchises which had been wrested by the Stuarts, or tamely yielded to their rapacity. The popular mind did not then suspect that the despotism of absolute monarchy had only given place to the omnipotence of parliament. Although a press had been established for scientific and literary purposes at Cambridge, in Massachusetts, about the middle of the seventeenth century, printing was not commenced in Boston, Philadelphia, or New York, until near the close of that century; nor was any newspaper printed in the American colonies before the year 1700. Dr. Cadwallader Colden, often mentioned in this memoir, in a letter written in 1743 to Dr. Franklin, minutely explained an improvement he had conceived in the art of printing, which was identical with the stereotype process introduced into France nearly sixty years afterward, by Mr. Herhan, under letters patent from Napoleon. Dr. Colden's letter was published in Hosack and Francis' American Medical and Philosophical Register, in 1810. But it is only just to say, that subsequent researches have resulted in showing that a bible was printed by Gillett, with stereotype plates, in Strasburgh, twenty years at least before the improvement suggested itself to Dr. Colden.†

The first newspaper which appeared in the colony of New York was the "New York Gazette," by William Bradford, in 1725. It was the fifth then in existence in the American colonies, three having already been established in Massachusetts, and one in Philadelphia. Bradford was said to have fled from Philadel

[blocks in formation]

phia to New York. He had given offence by publishing a paper written by George Keith. Keith had been condemned by the city meeting of Friends for a doctrine which he maintained, and he appealed to the general meeting of that society, and published an address concerning the controversy. The address was denounced as seditious, and Bradford was arrested and imprisoned for printing it. The trial of Bradford is a curious and instructive illustration of the spirit of the age, and of the imperfect notions of the liberty of the press which prevailed at that day. Keith was adjudged guilty, in both the ecclesiastical and civil courts without a hearing; and one of the judges having declared that the court could judge of the matter of fact without testimony, directed the common crier to "proclaim, in the marketplace, the accused to be a seditious person, an enemy to the king and queen's government." Bradford and Macomb, an associate, were charged with circulating the offensive pamphlet, and demanded a speedy trial as a right secured by magna charta. Being members of the society of Friends, they appeared in court covered. Justice Cooke inquired: "What bold, impudent, and confident men are these, to stand thus confidently before the court?" Bradford replied: "We are here only to desire that which is the right of every free-born English subject, which is speedy justice; and it is strange that that should be accounted impudence." Justice Cooke answered: "If thou hadst been in England, thou wouldst have had thy back lashed before now." The prisoners continued to press for a trial. Justice Cooke replied: "A trial thou shalt have, and that to your cost, it may be." When the trial came on, Bradford asked that he might have a copy of the presentment, and be informed under what law he was prosecuted; but these requests were denied. During the trial, "the grand jury sat by the prisoners overawing and threatening them, when they spoke boldly in their own defence, and one of the grand jurors wrote down such words as they disliked, signifying that they would present them. Justice Cooke bade the grand jurors take notice of such and such words." When the prisoner's counsel began to say something in regard to the matter, the court directed an officer to take him away. The attorney for the prosecution concluded by saying: "It is evident William Bradford printed the seditious paper, he being the printer in this place, and the frame on which it was printed

was found in his house." Bradford then said: "I desire the jury and all present to take notice, that there ought to be two evidences to prove the matter of fact, but not one evidence had been brought in this case." Justice Jennings answered: "The frame on which it was printed is evidence enough." Bradford replied: "But where is the frame? There has no frame been produced here; and if there had, it is no evidence unless you saw me print on it." To which Justice Jennings answered: The jury shall have the frame with them; it can not well be brought here; and besides, the season is cold, and we are not to sit here to endanger our health." The jury, however, after remaining out sixty hours, resisted all the urgency of the court, disagreed, and were discharged. Soon after this trial, Bradford, having in some manner obtained a release, appeared in New York. The sedition of the publication consisted in the inquiry, whether the Friends, in sending out armed commissions against piracy, did not violate their religious profession.

Thus the foundation of the press in New York may be said to have been laid in the maintenance or assertion of its primary rights and liberties. On arriving at New York, Bradford became printer to the government, which station he held for many years; and such is the infirmity of our nature, that, at a later period, when the only rival press in the colony had assumed an attitude opposed to the local government, and was sought to be crushed by prosecution and imprisonment, he was found on the side of power and privilege, and against the enfranchisements of speech for which he had contended forty years before. Bradford estab lished the first paper-mill in New Jersey, and the first perhaps in America. He was about seventy years old when he began the publication of the Gazette, and continued in the active duties of the paper for sixteen or seventeen years. The Gazette was continued after 1742, with the additional title of the "Weekly PostBoy" until 1773.

John Peter Zenger established in 1733 the "New York Week ly Journal," the second newspaper in the colony. It opposed the administration of Governor Cosby, and supported the interest of Rip Van Dam, who had previously conducted the administration. Zenger maintained an effective battery. "The ballads, serious charges, and above all, the home truths in his democratic journal, irritated Cosby and his council to madness." Zenger

was confined several months by order of the governor and council, for printing and publishing seditious libels; treated with unwarrantable severity; deprived of pen, ink, and paper, and denied the visits of his friends. The popular feeling, however, was strongly against these proceedings. The assembly, notwithstanding the application of the governor, refused to concur with him and his council. The mayor and the magistrates also refused to obey the mandate of the governor and council, and to attend the burning of the libellous papers "by the common hangman and whipper, near the pillory." The grand jury manifested equal contumacy, and ignored the presentment against Zenger. The attorney-general was then directed to file an information. The judges refused to hear and allow the exceptions taken by Zenger's counsel, and excluded them from the bar; but he was ably defended by other counsel, and especially by Andrew Hamilton, then a barrister of Philadelphia. Zenger pleaded not guilty. His counsel admitted the printing and publishing of the papers, and offered to give their truth in evidence. The counsel for the prosecution then said, "The jury must find a verdict for the king," and gave the usual definition of a libel; asserting that, "whether the person defamed was a private man or magistrate, whether living or dead, whether the libel was true or false, or whether the party against whom it was made was of good or evil fame, it was nevertheless a libel." He then quoted from the Acts of the Apostles, and from one of the epistles of Peter, to show that it was a very great offence to speak evil of dignities;" and insisted upon the criminality by the "laws of God and man, of reviling those in authority, and consequently that Mr. Zenger had offended in a most notorious and gross manner, in scandalizing his excellency our governor, who, said the counsel, is the king's immediate representative and supreme magistrate of this province." Mr. Hamilton remarked in his reply, that we are charged with printing and publishing a certain false, malicious, seditious, and scandalous libel. The word false must have some meaning, or else how came it there; and he put the case, whether if the information had been for printing a certain true libel, would that be the same thing? "And to show the court that I am in good earnest," said he, "I will agree, that if he can prove the facts charged upon us to be false, I will own them to be scandalous, seditious, and a libel." He then further

offered, that to save the prosecution the trouble of proving the papers to be false, the defendant would prove them to be true. To this, Chief-Justice De Lancey objected: "You can not be admitted to give the truth of a libel in evidence; the law is clear that you can not justify a libel." Mr. Hamilton maintained, that leaving the court to determine whether the words were libellous or not, rendered juries useless or worse. "It was true," he said, "in times past, it was a crime to speak truth, and in that terrible court of star-chamber many worthy and brave men suffered for so doing; and yet even in that court, and in those bad times, a great and good man durst say, what I hope will not be taken amiss in me to say in this place, to wit: "The practice of information for libels is a sword in the hands of a wicked king and an arrant coward, to cut down and destroy the innocent. The one can not, because of his high station, and the other dare not, because of his want of courage, defend himself in another manner.'"* The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of not guilty, to the great mortification of the court and of Zenger's persecutors, but with great satisfaction to the people. The common council of the city conferred upon Mr. Hamilton the public thanks and the freedom of the corporation, for that signal service which he cheerfully undertook under great indisposition of body, and generously performed, refusing either fee or reward.t

Such was the struggle which the press had to maintain only one hundred years ago, and only forty years before the revolution gave to its freedom the sanction of government and the impress of authority. Gouverneur Morris, in speaking of these occurrences to Dr. Francis, remarked "that the trial of Zenger was the germ of American freedom, the morning-star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." Zenger died in 1746. His newspaper was conducted by his widow, and afterward by his son, until 1752, when it was discontinued. The "New York Gazette and Weekly Post-Boy" was revived by James Parker in 1742, and was continued by successive proprietors until 1773. It was ably conducted, and had an extensive circulation; and though free, never transcended the bounds of

* Nearly seventy years afterward, another Hamilton maintained this great and now undeniable principle with eloquence and power, which may be said to have conquered at last this great concession to the liberty of the press.

Dunlap's History of New York.

« PreviousContinue »