Issues and constitutional influence of the John Peter Zenger trial

John Peter Zenger

What was the basic bottom line of the John Peter Zenger case? In brief, Zenger was born in Germany and came to New York as a thirteen-year-old boy in 1710. Zenger was fascinated with printing, and so he learned the craft of running a printing press and according to Arthur E. Sutherland's review of the book, a Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger (the book was written in part by James Alexander, a primary source, and edited by Stanley Nider Katz, Instructor of history at Harvard University) in the Harvard Law Review.

Zenger was hired as a printer and publisher by an attorney named James Alexander, who was part of the Provincial party that took opposition with the political positions and actions taken by the governor of New York.

Zenger published a series of "satirical attacks" (Olson, 2000) on the Governor of New York, William Cosby. Zenger, a professional printer and a publisher, was actually hired by Alexander to print a publication called New York Weekly Journal, and he was very free with his opinions in the journal. Those opinions written and published by Zenger were based on Alexander's views, in fact Alexander is said to have actually written many of the barbs. And the governor took serious issue with Zenger's attacks, especially when the governor began to see that the attacks were beginning to have an influence and were harming the governor's reputation. First, the governor ordered the sheriff burn four issues of Zenger's paper. That was on November 6, 1734. And eleven days after that, the sheriff, on orders from the governor, arrested Zenger on a warrant that charged the printer with "seditious libel."

So with Zenger in jail, the governor attempted to get a grand jury to indict Zenger, but the jury refused; next, in January 1735, the Attorney General for the state of New York, Richard Bradley, launched a prosecution against Zenger. After some maneuvering against Zenger's attorneys by the Attorney General the printer's legal team managed to get Andrew Hamilton to represent Zenger. When the governor's lawyers argued that the facts of the truth or falsehood of what was printed in Zenger's publication could not be admissible as a defense, Hamilton, "reputed to be the best lawyer in America," according to Sutherland's review, "boldly argued in favor of truth as a defense." Since there was no denying that the printed words were indeed those in question, and since there appeared to be nothing for the jury to do but "return a verdict of guilty," Hamilton then argued "...in favor of the power of juries to return general verdicts of not guilty." In other words, Hamilton instructed the jury to do exactly what the court had urged the jury not to do, and the jury "promptly acquitted Zenger."

Dr. Katz, who edited the book being reviewed by Sutherland, states in a quote within the book review by Sutherland that although the outcome of the case against Zenger was important, the "reformation of the law of libel and the associated unshackling of the press came about, when they did, as if Peter Zenger had never existed."

So, did this jury decision produce an across-the-board new American policy of freedom of the press? Did it have a meaningful affect on the U.S. Constitution? According to an article in Early American Literature (Olsen, 2000), the jury's decision "did not change the English definition of a free press or of libel." Scholar Stanley Katz wrote (quoted by Olsen) that the trial "...did not directly further the development either of political liberty or of freedom of the press."

At that time in American history, there had been political satires printed often, but they were published by "imperial officials themselves," and not by writers and political opponents. But between the time of the Zenger trial and the Stamp Act, Olsen continues, several fables, satires, "parodied speeches and proclamations" appeared in pamphlets, advertisements, poets' corners and news items, "virtually all of them in opposition to established governments and imperial officials." Of all of those dozens of printed protests and attacks on the persons in elected positions, there was only one, Olsen explains, who was prosecuted for libel, but in time the charges were also dropped against him.

However, even though the case didn't bring about legal changes in the actions of the press in America, after the Zenger trial, Olsen asserts, it was a known fact that "any politician was a fool to take a satirist to court." The Zenger case "lay at the crossroads of literature and law." In other words, there was a regular court of law, and a court of public opinion, much like we have today. If the public official who was satirized brought the issue to trial, charging the satirist with libel, the satirist could argue that he had simply "...portrayed community values as everyone understood them, and the official's behavior exactly as everyone saw him." Hence, the official's reputation would be "...on trial again." And if the jury believed the truth of the charges brought against the writer or the satirist, Olsen asserts, "the governor, not the printer, would be convicted in the court of public opinion."

The use of satire in politics was nothing new in England, according to Olson; satire as a strategy to attack government officials had been used widely throughout the first quarter of the 18th Century.

Vincent Buranelli, writing in American Quarterly, states that Zenger was "neither the editor nor even a principal writer" with the New York Weekly Journal. Although the trial and issue is linked to Zenger, Alexander is the "forgotten man"; he was joined by other writers from New York that gave the publication credibility. The paper was published every Monday, and Alexander wrote much of the copy, and he personally edited every article that attacked Governor William Cosby, Buranelli writes. Indeed, Alexander (an attorney) was "...in full possession of the theory of a free press long before the occasion arose for him to implement it as a working editor," Buranelli continues. This was an experiment in journalism - "as critical as ever was attempted by any members of our Fourth Estate" - that led to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Alexander had good reasons to attack Cosby, according to Buranelli's article. Cosby was "greedy, arrogant, despotic by nature, and completely unscrupulous," Buranelli writes. Moreover, the governor "insulted" elected members of the New York State Assembly, he "tampered" with the court system, he "frightened property-owners with his claims to land," and he ruled by the law of "divide and conquer." Also, he attempted to rig elections along with trading "leading citizens with cavalier distain." It would appear that there was ample justification for published attacks on this kind of behavior. And to present his viewpoint, Alexander wrote of Cosby in "scathing terms," and soon members of the "Popular Party" joined Alexander in his crusade. Basically, it was the widely accepted view that the outcome of the Zenger trial popularized the notion that the public has a right to know the truth, and that the press has a right (and under the Constitution, a duty) to print and report the truth.