DOCSLIB.ORG

Freedom of Speech: the King Vs John Peter Zenger

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Freedom of Speech: ) wife.5 The King vs John Peter Zenger i of fe wa Richard Cicale examines the Zenger trial and the affect it had on freedom of the press in America Idthel IN THE UNITED STATES, the concept almost any printed criticism of the Cosby was appointed, the former HenryJ of freedom of speech and freedom government was considered a governor of the Island of Minorca. Fsf the press is so fundamental, it crime, and few publishers were Cosby chose to remain in England is often taken for granted. From brave enough to risk imprison- for another 13 months, while in /[ore wa Watergate to Whitewater, Ameri- ment by printing something that New York a government official \t < cans expect their news media to might irk a government official. named Rip Van Dam governed in . 3 freely report on the controversial By the early 18th century, his place. When Cosby finally ill and; issues surrounding their govern- with the political tensions arrived in New York in 1732, he ment and political between the demanded half the pay Van Dam ,Mor leaders. colonies and earned while acting as governor. EKT ;:, While certain England rising, Van Dam refused and Cosby limits on press free- stirrings from promptly sued. During the subse- fjj dom have sometimes the public were quent court proceedings, one of , been deemed neces- heard to end the judges hearing the case, Chief •H sary in times of the govern- Justice Lewis Morris, ruled national crisis, most NEW-YORK, ment's control against Cosby. In retaliation, the Americans never of the press. governor removed Morris from :i-fif; question the basic x':.', - ' .. • ' ..'-v.. ..: .'. In 1731, a office. HH. For 1'aiHTis'o am! Fcr,lR>ii!ir-, ;•. I'JBEL premise that a free agiuiir the Guvermuair; '•:->::'-• chain of events These acts, along with other press is crucial to a ';• '.-,..' . -.'•••,•.''.-. ., "-''--- • '•' ' -. '.',. started that instances of questionable govern- free society. This •Ssw>sra5K:^isp;^«a«s5;-K-s-i=- would push ing, infuriated Cosby's critics, wasn't always the ^™-™^^^:--^;^ some New who wished to make public what case, however. ;,•*,*>£ .In early colonial times, freedom of the press as a legal right did not exist and a newspaper publisher could be fined or even thrown in jail for writing a critical story about a government official — even if the story was proven to jHans Hoi-; be true. sire pin-.; One of the first and most sig- sferthe*: nificant events that helped change aid. this state of affairs occurred in |d queefti 1735 in colonial New York. The Wear as incident — which set the stage for future events that shaped the nje, More j right to free speech in the US — Was •;•; involved an ordinary German immigrant, many of New York's Top left, cover of the book that told the story of the precedent-setting trial, said of 1 to have been written by one of Zenger's attorneys in 1752. Above, the court- elite and some nasty politics. room drama is captured in this illustration from the period. JJuly 15|| The Deatlvof a Governor and the Rafter- Birth of a Newspaper York powerbrokers, frustrated they saw as the governor's tyran- |e.;faith;"| The newspapers of pre-revolution with timid news reporting, into nical actions. Sjfcblic America were a dull affair, con- action and set off one of the defin- However, the only newspaper servant sisting mostly of advertisements ing moments in American journal- in town at the time was the New ?nd reprints of European news ism history., York Gazette, a loyal organ of the reports. The main impediment to It all started with the death of Cosby administration. To counter a.more vibrant press was govern- the colonial governor of New the pro-government bias of the mental censorship. In those days, York. To take his place, William Gazette, Cosby's critics, led by Van History Magazine December/January 2006 — 13 FAMOUS TRIALS Dam, Judge Morris and the well- was based on English legal prece- weak", Hamilton agreed to risk \s reputation and health on a < known lawyer James Alexander, dents prohibiting statements that decided to start their own journal. could incite the public against the controversial case that seemed j They called their newspaper The government. Under this legal tra- doomed from the start. The trial; New-York Weekly Journal and hired dition, the prosecution would took place at City Hall and woul| a German immigrant named John only have to prove that Zenger's open and close in one day, 4 Peter Zenger to print it. newspaper had published the arti- August 1735. Although Zenger didn't write cles in question. There could be no With Hamilton arguing for ' any of the articles that would soon consideration by the jury of defense, few in the courtroom land him in jail.— the Journal's whether the statements were true doubted there would be drama,; anti-government articles were or libelous. This put Alexander, but no one could have predicted;] written by the paper's intellectual who acted as the lawyer's backers — as its publisher he was Zenger's first words, legally responsible for everything lawyer, in the which the paper printed. almost unten- amounted to; The first issue of the Journal, able position of admission that; which appeared on 5 November defending his client had j 1733, accused Cosby of harassing someone who indeed cor voters and immediately turned had published ted the allege the placid, predictable newspaper the evidence of offense. "Ido| world of New York into a venue his guilt in his -B., _____ =— . confess that h§tjud for a furious political brawl. own news- ^ '' both printed mam .T:- -wK.. Another issue covered the paper. Mv;w;|j^ £Tji^ ^cIJi-&6&,- : and publishect|rep ' ' ' governor's oppressive behavior — Zenger's . _ the papers setjfjur "We see men's deeds destroyed, fate grew even forth in the sffsini ' judges arbitrarily displaced, new darker after [indictment]. "4|tim courts erected without consent of Alexander was Over the gaspsjffre< the legislature by which... trial by disbarred early ^of.. Airomej1." «T&r«i'-mj'- 'Proof*' 'of my : of the court, ?gre jury is taken away when a gover- in the pre-trial ' -' Hamilton con-!|urd nor pleases." proceedings for tinued, "I do Since public criti- ;v;:;::iSM^^vU,;.3: hope in so cism of a government doing he has official was extremely committed no;;ind rare, readers followed crime." ' 1 the frequent attacks This |EGo- with delight. Cosby, delighted the ;| out however, was prosecutor, wjpanc enraged. The gover- Top, a page from knew that the| Zenger's New York nor's first act of retri- Weekly Journal news- jury was only:! bution was paper, following the required to questionable in both trial and Zenger's decide on its efficacy and its landmark Not Guilty whether Zeng public relations verdict. In the article, had publishe impact — he had sev- Zenger thanks a the criticisms/! eral of the Journal's lengthy list of partici- regardless of more damning issues pants including his their truthful-/|yoi publicly burned. solicitors and jury ness. It seemed! members. Left, a Things grew more painting depicting to most people! c serious when on 17 the case's various in the court- November 1734, lawyers, judges and room that,' Zenger was arrested jury members. Zenger's i and jailed on charges lawyer had JUEJ of seditious libel. arguing with the judge. This admitted this point the jury had1 forced Zenger's defenders to no option but to convict. The Trial of John Peter Zenger quickly find another lawyer brave, Hamilton, however, was: With Zenger in jail and his wife or reckless, enough to take the finished. Citing precedents d; taking up the work of publishing case. They decided to aim high back to Magna Carta and in wordfwh. the Journal, Alexander and the rest and prevailed upon the most that brought cheers from the : of his allies set about planning famous attorney of the day, tators, Hamilton derided the '. Zenger's defense. It wasn't going Philadelphia lawyer Andrew and insisted that truth was indety to be easy. Hamilton. Although he was 60 at the heart of whether Zenger § flee The charge of seditious libel and described himself as "old and was guilty of seditious libel. The 14 — History Magazine December/January 2006 irritated judges angrily admon- short time and, to no one's sur- as it did in the Zenger verdict. - ished Hamilton "to use us with prise, found the defendant not The legal effects of the trial fed good manners" and reminded guilty. were also murky. On the most trial him that he was not permitted to Zenger was set free after basic level, the trial was only an offer truth as a defense against spending most of the previous isolated victory for Zenger and his libel. year in jail and would continue supporters, with no actual legal The judges were on firm legal publishing the Journal until his precedents being set. In fact, it's footing here and Hamilton knew death at 66 years of age. Hamilton very likely that the Zengerites it. At this point, Hamilton's task spent the rest of his days as a would have again felt the wrath of was no longer to argue in judge, dying on 4 August 1741, six the governor's office had Cosby Zenger's defense, but to argue years to the day after the Zenger not died so soon after the trial, he against the fairness of the law not being one to take such a under which he was charged. defeat quietly.
Recommended publications
  • Indelible Ink – the Trial of John Peter Zenger and the Birth of America’S Free Press

    Indelible Ink – the Trial of John Peter Zenger and the Birth of America’S Free Press

    BOOK REVIEW By M. KELLY TILLERY Indelible Ink – The Trial of John Peter Zenger and the Birth of America’s Free Press ichard Kluger won the Pulitzer in late 1733. Alexander and Morris RPrize for his masterful expose intended to use it as a vehicle to make of the cigarette industry in Cosby and his royal administration Ashes to Ashes in 1996, and his study accountable to the people. As the most of school desegregation, Simple Justice prominent and wealthy lawyer in New (1975), is a classic. His latest, equally York, Alexander had a lot to lose and excellent if less controversial should be thus concealed his involvement, lest he of interest to every Philadelphia Lawyer. be charged with seditious libel or worse. Indelible Ink is the most thoughtful, Zenger was a businessman without comprehensive and well-researched any particular political leanings, but study of the 1735 criminal trial in New he knew this was risky business. So York City of newspaper publisher John he made a deal. He would print, and Peter Zenger on charges of seditious Morris and Alexander would write, but libel. While you may know that Zenger Alexander would pay for everything and was acquitted, that he was defended by a defend him for free if he was charged. Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton, And Zenger would not betray his and that his victory was based upon the backer’s identity. defense of truth, Kluger sets forth so The newspaper was a hit as each much more. And, it is not all what you issue turned up the heat on Cosby.
  • The Trial of John Peter Zenger

    The Trial of John Peter Zenger

    THE TRIAL OF JOHN PETER ZENGER A Play in Five Scenes by Michael E. Tigar Copyright © 1986, Michael E. Tigar All Rights Reserved Written for Initial Performance at the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association New York, New York, August 10, 1986 Cast of Characters, in Order of Appearance (With names of actors at initial performance) John Peter Zenger, a printer (Scott Armstrong) Chief Justice James Delancey (Tim Miller) James Alexander, a lawyer (David Keyser) Richard Bradley, Attorney General of New York (Mac Williams) John Chambers, a lawyer (Rick Froom) Andrew Hamilton, a lawyer (Michael E. Tigar) Margaret Hamilton, his daughter (Katherine Tigar) Peter Zenger, Zenger's son (Steve Cummins) Thomas Hunt, Foreman of the Jury (G. William Birrell) Scene I: Supreme Court, New York City, April 1735 Scene II: Andrew Hamilton's home in Philadelphia, August 1735 Scene III: The Black Horse Tavern, New York City, August 1735 Scene IV: Supreme Court, New York City, August 1735 Scene V: Supreme Court, New York City, August 1735 ZENGER.DOC Page 1 Program Notes The libel trial of John Peter Zenger was a celebrated event in American colonial history: It fueled the dispute over freedom of the press in New York for decades thereafter. Briefly, Zenger was arrested and charged with libelling the colonial Governor, William Cosby. The Chief Justice, James Delancey, who presided at the trial, was a wealthy adherent to Cosby's cause, and was only 32 years old at the time of the trial. Cosby appointed Delancey to be Chief Justice when the former Chief Justice ruled against Cosby in a celebrated suit.
  • The Trial of John Peter Zenger

    The Trial of John Peter Zenger

    The Trial of John Peter Zenger Should someone be prosecuted for criticizing a government official even if the words are true? Should a judge or a jury decide the case? These were the key issues in the trial of John Peter Zenger. English kings had long controlled the press. King Henry VIII required all writing be licensed before it could be printed. The king prosecuted authors and printers who published unlicensed writing. A powerful royal council known as the Star Chamber controlled the licensing of printed works. The Star Chamber also created a crime called libel. “Seditious libel” was the most serious kind of libel. This outlawed insulting the government, its laws, and officials. Kings and parliaments wanted people to respect them. The Star Chamber ruled that the truth of printed words did not matter. Truth was not a defense in libel cases. In fact, the Star Chamber saw true statements that libeled the government as more dangerous than false ones. People would more easily dismiss false statements. The most famous trial lawyer in the American colonies, Parliament got rid of the Star Chamber Andrew Hamilton addressed the court. He was in 1642, and the last licensing laws defending publisher Peter Zenger against the criminal expired by 1695. But courts continued charge of seditious libel. (New York State Library) to enforce the Star Chamber libel laws. Judges decided whether printed words were libelous. Juries decided only if a defendant had published the words in question. By 1700, “freedom of the press” in England only meant no government licensing. Once authors and printers had published their writing, English officials could still charge them with seditious libel.
  • John Peter Zenger and Freedom of the Press

    John Peter Zenger and Freedom of the Press

    John Peter Zenger and Freedom of the Press Should someone be prosecuted for criticizing or insulting a government official even if the offending words are the truth? Should a judge or a jury decide the case? These were the key questions argued in the colonial New York trial of John PeterZenger. s early as 1275, the English AParliament had outlawed “any slanderous News” that may cause “dis- cord” between the king and his people. Slander, however, only referred to the spoken word. Published works became a much more serious threat to kings and parliaments after the invention of print- ing greatly enhanced communication in the 1400s. By the 1500s, King Henry VIII of England required all writing be cen- The most famous trial lawyer in the American colonies, Andrew Hamilton addressed the sored and licensed by royal officials court. He was defending publisher Peter Zenger against the criminal charge of seditious libel. (New York State Library) before being printed. Known as “prior restraint,” this heavy-handed control over the printed word resulted in prose- The Star Chamber ruled that the truth of printed words cutions of authors and printers who published unli- did not matter. Truth was not a defense in libel cases. censed writings. In fact, the Star Chamber considered truthful state- W In England, a powerful royal council known as ments that libeled the government or its officials as the Star Chamber controlled the licensing of even more dangerous than false ones. People would U printed works. (The council got its name more easily dismiss false statements. because stars covered the ceiling of its meeting Parliament abolished the Star Chamber in 1642, and S room.) The Star Chamber created a new crime the last licensing laws expired by 1695.
  • Germans Settling North America : Going Dutch – Gone American

    Germans Settling North America : Going Dutch – Gone American

    Gellinek Going Dutch – Gone American Christian Gellinek Going Dutch – Gone American Germans Settling North America Aschendorff Münster Printed with the kind support of Carl-Toepfer-Stiftung, Hamburg, Germany © 2003 Aschendorff Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Münster Das Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte, insbesondere die der Überset- zung, des Nachdrucks, der Entnahme von Abbildungen, der Funksendung, der Wiedergabe auf foto- mechanischem oder ähnlichem Wege und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Die Vergütungsansprüche des § 54, Abs. 2, UrhG, werden durch die Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort wahrgenommen. Druck: Druckhaus Aschendorff, Münster, 2003 Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier ∞ ISBN 3-402-05182-6 This Book is dedicated to my teacher of Comparative Anthropology at Yale Law School from 1961 to 1963 F. S. C. Northrop (1893–1992) Sterling Professor of Philosophy and Law, author of the benchmark for comparative philosophy, Philosophical Anthropology and Practical Politics This Book has two mottoes which bifurcate as the topic =s divining rod The first motto is by GERTRUDE STEIN [1874–1946], a Pennsylvania-born woman of letters, raised in California, and expatriate resident of Europe after 1903: AIn the United States there is more space where nobody is than where anybody is. That is what makes America what it is.@1 The second motto has to do with the German immigration. It is borrowed from a book by THEODOR FONTANE [1819–1898], a Brandenburg-born writer, and a critic of Prussia. An old German woman, whose grandchildren have emigrated to Anmerica is speaking in her dialect of Low German: [ADröwen in Amirika.
  • Freedom of the Press: the Trial of Peter Zenger 

    Freedom of the Press: the Trial of Peter Zenger 

    The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: THE TRIAL OF PETER ZENGER Grade 5 United States History and Geography I. Introduction he trial of a German printer named John Peter Zenger in August 1735 helped Testablish one of our most cherished constitutional rights: freedom of the press. On August 5, 1735, twelve New York jurors acquitted Zenger of seditious libel. He had been arrested and charged with seditious libel for printing statements in the New York Weekly Journal that were critical of colonial Governor William Cosby’s arbitrary rule. Zenger’s defense lawyer argued that Zenger was not guilty of libel because the statements against Cosby were true. However, under English law, the mere fact that a printer published statements that were critical of the government constituted seditious libel, regardless of their veracity. Therefore, the trial judge, who had been hand picked by Governor Cosby in the first place, instructed the jury to return a verdict of “guilty” because Zenger had admitted to printing the statements. However, Zenger’s brilliant defense lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, asked the jury to consider whether or not the statements were true before they rendered a verdict of guilty. Hamilton admitted that Zenger had published the critical statements, but he argued that as long as the statements were true, they should not be considered libelous. (“Truth should govern the whole affair of libels”). The jury unanimously ignored the judge’s instructions and returned a verdict of “not guilty.” This verdict established truth as a defense against libel in New York, departing from English law.
  • Colonial Culture 1607

    Colonial Culture 1607

    S ECTION 5 COLONIAL C ULTURE 1607 - 1776 1750BLACK AND WHITE POPULATION OF THE COLONIES Total 1750 Population: 1,170,760 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia 1790ETHNIC POPULATION OF THE NEW UNITED STATES TOTAL 1790 P OPULATION : 3,929, 214 62 5-1 # THE SOCIAL LADDER AND THE AMERICAN DREAM, 1607-1776 “In America, people don’t ask ‘What is he?’ but ‘What can he do?”’ —Benjamin Franklin America has always had social classes. But unlike Europe’s tradition of closed social ranks, fixed by birth, America’s open social ladder—climbed through wealth and talent—offers upward mobility. Abundant land plus hard work put wealth within reach of the colonists, and America’s economic opportunities beckoned them up the ladder. Benjamin Franklin, about whom you’ll read later, is one example of the colonists’ response. Freedom to climb the social ladder, to better one’s self, is the American Dream. To catch the spirit of the American Dream in the colonial era, read the words of Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, a French immigrant living in New York, who wrote Letters From an American Farmer i n 1782. The selection below is from his most famous letter. WHAT IS AN AMERICAN? ¨ UPPER CLASS: GENTRY By J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, 1782 (upper 5%) planters “In this great American asylum, the poor of Europe merchants have by some means met together....Urged by a royal officials variety of motives, here they came.

  • Lawfinding Power of Colonial American Juries

    The Lawfinding Power of Colonial American Juries WILLIAM E. NELSON* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. NEW ENGLAND ............................................................ 1004 HI. VIRGINIA .................................................................. 1008 II1. PENNSYLVANIA.......................................................... 1008 IV. NEW YORK .............................................................. 1015 V. THE CAROLINAS.......................................................... 1023 VI. CONCLUSION............................................................. 1028 Three decades ago I published an article, based mainly on research in published primary sources, arguing that eighteenth-century American juries had the right to decide law as well as fact in the cases, both civil and criminal, that came before them.' I am now in the middle of a decade-long project of examining nearly all extant manuscript sources for colonial American law.2 On the basis of the material I have studied so far, I already know that the story of the jury's power is far more complex than I had thought before. If the question is simply whether colonial juries had power to find law, the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no. In New England, I remain convinced that the answer is mainly yes. In Virginia, where I have yet to research eighteenth-century manuscript sources, published sources suggest that the answer is yes. But in other major colonies-New York, Pennsylvania, and both Carolinas-the answer is no. But that simple question is the wrong one. We care about jury power because it serves as a proxy for a more important issue-the issue of how much power local communities enjoy to live by their own law rather than the law of some central authority. When appellate judges determine what is law and trial judges possess power to take a case from a jury if the jury does not follow their instructions on that law, then central bureaucrats or polity-wide majorities will possess ultimate governance authority.

  • Page 1:Page 1

    TheThe SteubenSteuben NewsNews A Newspaper by German-Americans for All Americans VOL. 90 NO.1 DUTY • JUSTICE • CHARITY • TOLERANCE JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2017 Plattduetsche Park in Franklin Square, NY is the site of this yearʼs 98th Anniversary & Founderʼs day Banquet National Council 98th Anniversary 2017 International Germanic Genealogy Conference in MInneapolis, MN Founder’s Day Banquet Speakers include Dirk Weissleder (L) and Roger Minert (R) Join us as we celebrate our 98th year of existence at the 2017 International Germanic Genealogy Conference Founders Day Banquet, May 21, 2017 1:00-6:00 p.m. at the Features All-Star Lineup of Speakers Plattduetsche Park Restaurant, Franklin Square, NY, for a fes- An all-star lineup of speakers, including well-known international tive dinner enhanced by the musical entertainment of John figures, is slated for the 2017 International Germanic Genealogy Weber. We are proud and honored to announce that our guest Conference, set for July 28-30, 2017 in Minneapolis, Minn. Among 39 confirmed presenters are figures including Roger speaker will be Lt. Colonel Michael Breuer. He is the Minert, Ernest Thode, Dirk Weissleder of Germany, Baerbel Johnson, German Army Liason Officer to the US Military Academy at Fritz Juengling, Michael Lacopo, James Beidler, Paula Stuart-Warren, West Point. Founders Day honors our founders, Patron and Teresa Steinkamp McMillin, Jill Morelli and Stephen Morse. military service people. This year's menu is as follows: Other international presenters include Ursula Krause, Werner Hors d’ouvres, seasonal melon with Black Forest Ham Esser and Timo Kracke, all of Germany, and Benjamin Hollister of and berries and a salad is included.
  • Religion and the John Peter Zenger Case

    Religion and the John Peter Zenger Case

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 244 276 CS 208 3O8 AUTHOR Nord, David Paul TITLE The Authority of.Truth: Religion and the John Peter Zenger Case. PUB DATE i Aug 84 NOTE. 27p.; Paper pretented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (67th, Gaineiville, FL, August 5-8, " 1984). PUB= TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150 -- Viewpoints (120) Historical Materials (060) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC NoAvailable from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Court Litigation; *Freedontof Speech; *Journalism; *Newspapers; Politics; *Religion; Religious Conflict; Unted States History IDENTIFIERS *JournaXism History; Libel; *Zenger (John Peter) ABSTRACT An appreciation of the religious milieu of the John Peter Zenger libel case of 1735 can help explain the nature of the Zenger defense as prepared by'Alexander Hamilton, the meaning of the jury's verdict, and the ambiguous- legacy of the trial.for freedom of expression in the United States. In essence, the case was a disputation on "truth" and on how ,truth it revealed to'humans. Because_this issue lay ot the heart of Protestant religiot as well as of colonial politics, the Zenger cape may be seen as an interesting intersection of. the two. Indeed, ,the case and the jury's verdict were closely associated withthe spirit of the Great Awakening of "religion. Like the Great Awakening, the Zenger case reflected the skepticism about human _auth6rity felt by ordinary people who possessed a deep faith in the existence of God and of truth. Like the ministers of "awakened" congregations, whq were willingto reject the authority of creeds and\hierarchies, the Zenger jurors were willing ` to reject the instructions of the chief justice of New York.
  • Journalism Quarterly Devoted to Research in Journalism and Mass Communication

    Journalism Quarterly Devoted to Research in Journalism and Mass Communication

    SUMMER 1985 Journalism Quarterly Devoted to Research in Journalism and Mass Communication By David Paul Nord The Authority of Truth: Religion And the John Peter Zenger Case Freedom of expression had gious roots. The Zenger affair reveals important religious roots. some of these roots. Beneath the Sut$ace w This article is about religion in the John Religion lay beneath the surface and Peter Zcnger case of 1735. Its main argu- between the lines of the Zenger case; the ment is that an appreciation of the reli- overt issues were political and legal. John gious milieu of the case can help to explain Peter Zenger's New York Weeklv Journal, the nature of Zenger's defense, the mean- which began publication in 1733, has been ing of the jury's verdict, and the ambig- described as the "first political indepen- uous legacy of the trial for freedom of dent" newspaper in America.1 This is not expression in America. In essence, the quite true. It would be more accurate to Zenger case was a disputation on truth, call it the first political party paper. The and on how truth is revealed to man. Journal was launched by a group of New Because this issue lay at the heart of Prot- York politicians. led by Lewis Morris, estant religion as well as colonial politics who opposed the administration of Gov- in the 1730s. the Zenger case can be seen ernor William Cosby. Although Zenger as an interesting intersection of the two. was the printer and proprietor of the Throughout their history, Americans have Journal, the true editor seems to have been strangely intolerant libertarians, of- been James Alexander, a well-known law- ten suppressing individual liberties in the yer.
  • The Schemes of Public Parties: William Allen, Benjamin Franklin and the College of Philadelphia, 1756

    The Schemes of Public Parties: William Allen, Benjamin Franklin and the College of Philadelphia, 1756

    THE SCHEMES OF PUBLIC PARTIES: WILLIAM ALLEN, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND THE COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA, 1756 ________________________________________________________________________ A Master’s Thesis Submitted to The Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Jefferson Berry January 2011 Thesis Approvals: Thesis Advisor: David Waldstreicher, Temple University History Department Review Committee: Susan Klepp, Temple University History Department © Copyright 2011 by Jefferson Berry All Rights Reserved € ii ABSTRACT Chief Justice William Allen and Benjamin Franklin met hundreds of times prior to Franklin’s departure to London in 1757, and yet very little has been written about Allen. For over twenty years, Franklin and Allen worked closely on a variety of municipal improvements: the library, the hospital, the school, the fire company and many other projects were the first of their kind in America. And while Allen was Franklin’s main benefactor for close to twenty-five years --it was Allen’s endorsement of Franklin that got him his job as Postmaster-- Franklin mentions him only twice in his Autobiography. As the richest man in the Pennsylvania and the leader of the Proprietary Party, the historical silencing of such a powerful figure is usual. This thesis examines the relationship between Allen and Franklin and offers an explanation of William Allen’s lack of posterity and near-total absence from colonial American history. On May 16, 1756 an Allen led coalition of trustees in a vote to fire Franklin as President of the College and Academy of Philadelphia, an institution, a school Franklin founded and would later become the University of Pennsylvania.