The Life and the Trial of John Peter Zenger - Essay Example

?The John Peter Zenger Trial Introduction “There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet.” Thisfamous quotation by William F. Halsey aptly encapsulates the life and the trial of John Peter Zenger. He was catapulted into the hall of heroes not for any extraordinary deed but because of the extraordinary case filed against him by the most powerful person in New York at that time. John Peter Zenger was an ordinary person who only wanted to provide for his family. But at the end of the day, he provided more than what was expected of him. He provided the American judicial system with the concept of jury nullification. And in its aftermath, he also provided the people of America with the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This paper shall look into the Zenger trial and its legacy of jury nullification and freedom of speech and of the press. The Antecedent Facts Although the case banners Zenger’s name, he is in fact a mere collateral personality in this entire hullabaloo. His participation is actually limited to being the printer of The New York Weekly Journal, no more, no less. The case traces its history way back to the arrival of Governor William Cosby into the shores of America. When Cosby arrived in August 1731, New York was under the capable hands of Rip Van Dam as Acting Governor. Van Dam, a member of the Provincial Council of New York was appointed as acting governor while Cosby made the months-long journey from Britain to America. However, upon his arrival, Cosby demanded that Van Dam turn over half of the salary he had received as Acting Governor. When the latter declined, Cosby sued Van Dam in a court which he created solely for that purpose. (The Trial) To ensure a favorable decision, Cosby bypassed the jury from his case and instead appointed the Supreme Court of New York to hear and decide the collection suit at first instance. Van Dam challenged the legality and constitutionality of this act but he lost on a vote of two to one. Two Supreme Court justices voted in favor of the constitutionality of Cosby’s act while the lone dissenter was Justice Lewis Morris. Later, Cosby demanded Morris to explain why he voted against him. Morris filed his explanation via an open letter which was published by Zenger. As a result, Morris was fired and replaced by James Delancey. (The Trial) After he was fired, Morris founded the Popular Party together with Van Dam and lawyer James Alexander, under which Morris ran as candidate for Assemblyman. His victory was reported in great detail in the maiden issue of the New York Weekly Journal published on November 5, 1733 which was owned by the partnership of Zenger and Alexander. For months, The New York Weekly Journal published attacks and criticisms against the unpopular incumbent governor. Alexander writes the articles and Zenger prints them. (The Trial) When these attacks came out, Cosby tried but failed to get an indictment from the Grand Jury on the ground that the author of the said attacks is unknown. In response, an outraged Cosby issued an order dated October 22, 1734 mandating that issue numbers 7, 47, 48 and 49 of The New York Weekly Journal “be burned by the hands of the common hangman or whipper… as containing in them many things tending to sedition and faction, to bring His Majesty’s government into contempt.” (Order for the Public Burning of Zenger's Journals) At about the same time, Cosby also offered a reward of fifty pounds to whoever shall have information on the identity of the libelous publication’s authors. However, when there were no takers for his considerable offer, Attorney General Richard Bradley was ordered to file the information for seditious libel against Zenger, the only identifiable person behind the publications. After which, a bench warrant dated November 2, 1734 was issued for the arrest of Zenger. Among others, the warrant states that Zenger is facing charges for “printing and publishing several seditious libels dispersed throughout his journals or newspapers, entitled The New York Weekly Journal; as having in them many things tending to raise factions and tumults among the people of this Province, inflaming their minds with contempt of His Majesty’s government, and greatly disturbing the peace thereof.” (Bench Warrant) John Peter Zenger Zenger is an immigrant from Germany. In 1710, when he was thirteen years old, his family left for America but his father died at sea and only his mother was left to raise the family in a new country that speaks a different language. His first wife with whom he has one son, died shortly after their son was born. He married Anna Maulist in 1722 and the couple was blessed with five children. (Capistron) His career as a printer started as an indentured apprentice to William Bradford in New York. In 1726, he opened his own shop which was primarily into the business of printing religious tracts. Then in 1933, he partnered with James Alexander to produce The New York Weekly Journal (Key Figures). This partnership with Alexander earned him the rage of Governor William Cosby which led to his incarceration. He was in jail for eight months. During the time that he was imprisoned, public outrage against Cosby grew as the people sympathized with Zenger who continued to publish the Journal and its usual attacks on the incumbent administration. Only this time, the Journal devotes a section for Zenger’s letters from prison, the first of which says: “I was put under such restraint that I had not the liberty of pen, ink or paper, or to see or speak with people, until my complaint to the honorable Chief Justice at my appearing before him upon my habeas corpus on the Wednesday following.  He discountenanced that proceeding, and therefore I have had since that time the liberty of speaking thro' the hole of the door to my wife and servants.”(The Trial) Governor William Cosby Cosby was the Governor of New York from 1732 until his death on March 10, 1736 (Key Figures). A notoriously unpopular public official, Cosby will forever be remembered as the oppressive governor who used all his powers to serve his personal whims and caprices to the point of firing from their jobs and even sending to prison anyone who dared opposed him. He got involved in conflicts and disputes with ranking and respected political and government personalities in New York. Andrew Hamilton An accomplished lawyer from Pennsylvania, Hamilton took over the case of John Peter Zenger as a court-appointed attorney when Zenger’s counsels, namely, James Alexander and William Smith were disbarred for the sole reason that they questioned the authority and validity of the court presided by two justices specifically chosen by Cosby to try and hear the libel case. (The Trial) Hamilton’s eloquence successfully persuaded the jury to look beyond the letters of the law which, if applied in its strict and literal sense, would no doubt warrant the conviction of Zenger. The jurors could not agree more to the sixty-year-old lawyer’s summation that: “The danger is great in proportion to the mischief that may happen through our too great credulity.  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 whether others - 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.” (Trial Record) The Trial The trial was as quick and short as the history of the case was long and complicated. The trial day was composed mostly of speeches and arguments by the lawyers of both sides, namely, Attorney General Richard Bradley for the state and Andrew Hamilton for the defense. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded “Not Guilty” to the information which reads: "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…”(Trial Record) The Attorney General then spent a great amount of time enumerating to the jury the many instances when the governor was maligned by criticisms published in the Journal. And when it was time for the defense to present its case, Hamilton surprised everyone when he pronounced that the accused confesses to the act by declaring that "he both printed and published the two newspapers set forth in the information - and I hope that in so doing he has committed no crime.” (Trial Record) Hamilton then proceeded to explain the reason behind the unexpected confession in this wise: “I hope it is not our bare printing and publishing a paper that will make it a libel.  You will have something more to do before you make my client a libeler.  For the words themselves must be libelous that is, false, scandalous, and seditious or else we are not guilty." (Trial Record). The position of the defense is actually simple enough for any ordinary person to understand. Hamilton argues that it is natural for any person to complain and remonstrate for any wrongdoing done to him or to his fellowmen. However, he also acknowledges that this right to complain is limited by the laws of man and “it is truth alone that can excuse or justify any man for complaining of a bad administration” (Trial Record). As such, Hamilton challenges the prosecution to prove the falsity of the complaints printed in the Journal. But as expected, the attorney general argued that “a negative cannot be proved” so the defense offered to prove the veracity of the words claimed to be seditious and libelous. Hamilton’s ingenious proposition was cut short by Chief Justice Delancey’s interjection that Hamilton cannot be allowed to prove the truth of the allegation and ruled that, “libel is not to be justified; for it is nevertheless a libel that it is true." (Trial Record) After the prosecution and the defense have both rested their cases, the presiding judge, Chief Justice James Delancey, instructed the jury 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…”(Trial record) The jury then proceeded to deliberate the case and came back to court with the historic verdict of “Not Guilty” (Trial Record). Jury Nullification The jury system was actually instituted to serve the sole purpose of protecting the accused from oppression by the government and the people in government. An accused stands alone to face the charges against him and fight his case against the government’s vast resources. The jury is there to neutralize that leverage and create a procedure that ensures due process for the accused. The concept of jury nullification was invented in England way back in 1670 in the case of William Penn and William Mead (Heicklen). Indeed, this power of the jury is an embodiment of the true democratic spirit which frowns upon the arbitrary application of laws. Among others, the most important contribution of the Zenger trial to the modern judicial system of the United States is the introduction of the concept of jury nullification in America. For their bravery, courage and steadfastness, the names of the jury in the Zenger trial are worth mentioning, led by Foreman Thomas Hunt. The Other jurors are John Bell, Egbert van Borsom, John Goelet, Stanly Holmes, Benjamin Hildreth, Abraham Keteltas, Edward Man, Andries Marschalk, Harmanus Rutgers, Samuel Weaver, and Hercules Wendover. (Trial Record) Jury nullification is a valid and official act of the jury wherein an accused of a criminal offense is pronounced “Not Guilty” although by simple application of the law, he would had have been otherwise convicted (Linder, 2001). The jury apparently disregards the instructions of the judge and declares that the law with which the accused is being tried against is unlawfully applied. In essence, the jury nullifies not the order or instructions of the judge; rather, the jury nullifies the law itself. Half a century later in 1789, no less that the Chief Justice of the newly constituted Supreme Court of the United States, John Jay, declared that “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy” (Heicklen). This is an affirmation and confirmation of the legality and validity of the power of jury nullification. However, perhaps the most precise description of the legal authority of the jury to nullify a law is the statement of Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone in 1941 wherein he declared that “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided” (Heicklen). The Zenger jury is vindicated. Freedom of Speech and of the Press Today, we enjoy the protection of the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” But such was not the case for the people of America before the Bill of Rights was written and came into effect. There exists no such guarantee. Instead, there was a law which punishes the crime of seditious libel; the very same law against which John Peter Zenger was indicted and imprisoned. And it was the same law which the Zenger jury refused to enforce. The Zenger case provided the cornerstone for the development of the freedom of expression as well as the freedom of the press. As a necessary consequence of the “Not Guilty” verdict on Zenger, the jury did not just tell the court and the governor that Zenger is innocent of the crime charged. The brave jury in effect, made an unwritten law which rendered the seditious libel law virtually without force and effect. The Zenger trial was the tiny spark which grew into the huge bonfire that keeps the press in the light and enlightened about their freedoms, rights as well as their obligation to bring the truth to the people. It was the seed that grew into the all-encompassing protection of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights (Capistron). Interestingly, freedom of speech or of the press was never made an issue in the case and Zenger was acquitted not because the jury believed that as a printer, he enjoys such freedoms. Rather, he was acquitted for the sole reason that Hamilton was able to convince the juries that the contents of his publications were the truth. Conclusion John Peter Zenger was just an ordinary man caught amidst an extraordinary circumstance. At the start of the story, he was the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time. He was nothing more than a mere collateral damage in the partisan political conflict between Governor William Cosby and his adversaries. He was just trying to make a living when he was caught in the crossfire. But then again, in retrospect, Zenger was the right person at the right place at the right time. If it were another person who was sued for seditious libel, like James Alexander or Lewis Morris, the jury might have returned a different verdict because their partisan motives are clear and apparent. If it were somebody else, then jury nullification might not have been introduced and taken its roots in the 18th century. If it were somebody else, then the freedom of speech and of the press might have taken much longer to be born in America and for all we know, it might still have been in its infancy at this time and age. Thanks to the Zenger trial, we now have a jury system with an institutionalized jury nullification powers. Thanks to the Zenger trial, we enjoy freedom of speech and of the press today. And more importantly, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave men and women that comprises the Zenger jury. Works Cited: Bench Warrant for Arrest of John Peter Zenger. November 2, 1734. Accessed on November 30, 2011. Available at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/burningorder.html#Bench Capistron, Caitlin. The Zenger Case and Freedom of the Press in America. Accessed on November 30, 2011. Available at http://www.harwich.edu/depts/history/hhj/zen.html Heicklen, Julian. Jury Nullification. Accessed on November 30, 2011. Available at http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13/JuryNullification.html Key Figures in the Trial of John Peter Zenger. Accessed on November 30, 2011. Available at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/keyfigures.html Linder, Doug. (2001). Jury Nullification. Accessed on November 30, 2011. Available at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html Linder, Doug. (2001). The Trial of John Peter Zenger: An Account. Accessed on November 30, 2011. Available at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengeraccount.html Order for the Public Burning of Zenger's Journals. October 22, 1734. Accessed on November 30, 2011. Available at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/burningorder.html#Bench Trial Record: From Zenger's A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger (1736). Accessed on November 30, 2011. Available at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengerrecord.html Read More