"The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." (Barnett, 105)

With these words, Gouverneur Morris of New Jersey, in the mid-nineteenth century, elucidated the significance of the trial of John Peter Zenger in the movement for a bill of rights. In the emerging democracy that was to become the United States of America, individuals and groups struggled to codify the rights and freedoms that would make their form of government unique. In the traditional English way of life, in the American colonies, people were confined to certain principles. Those who spoke out against the government could be tried and punished as traitors. It mattered not that some had spoken or written the truth. Under English common law, a person speaking against the government was automatically guilty of seditious libel.

The trial of John Peter Zenger, in 1735, was a precedent setting case, in that Zenger was found not guilty of the charge of seditious libel, specifically because what he printed was true. (Levy, 130) This began a nation wide movement against the present form of government and for freedom of the press, which continued until the close of the Revolutionary War and the establishment of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. While some may take it for granted today, the creation of the Bill of Rights was by no means an undisputed issue. Public sentiment was divided as were politicians and lawmakers. In examining the Zenger trial, one can begin to understand how our first amendment rights, specifically freedom of the press, emerged as an important democratic principle.

John Peter Zenger emigrated to the United States from Germany at age thirteen. His family traveled on board a ship sent by Queen Anne in 1710. Zenger’s father died on the journey, leaving his wife Johanna to care for young Zenger and his siblings. After his arrival in America, Zenger was indentured to the printer William Bradford in Pennsylvania. He worked for Bradford from 1710 to 1719, learning printing techniques to enable him to establish his own printing business. Following his marriage to Mary White of Philadelphia, Zenger moved to Kent County, Maryland. Here, Zenger set up a small printing press and was granted permission by the local Assembly to print the town’s session laws. However, no copies of these publications have ever been found. After the death of his wife in 1722, Zenger moved to New York and married Anna Catherina Maulin. The next year, Zenger was made a freeman, or citizen, of New York City. (Malone, 648-649)

In 1726, Zenger started his own printing business, publishing primarily pamphlets in Dutch. However, he also published the first arithmetic book in the colonies, Peter Venema’s "Arithmetica." After eight years at his address on Smith Street, Zenger moved his business to Broad Street. It was here that Zenger printed his most controversial works. (Thomas, 461)

Beginning in 1732, William Cosby was instituted as the governor of New York City. Before his arrival in New York, Cosby had been removed from a post in Minorca for misconduct. He began his tyrant behavior again in New York, and took arbitrary action against citizens without permission of the Assembly. Great debate arose when Rip Van Dam, the temporary governor before Cosby refused to follow tradition and bequeath part of his salary to the incoming governor. Cosby sued Van Dam and brought him to court to obtain the money. (Barnett, 34-36)

At the case in April 1733, the presiding justice, Lewis Morris, ruled in favor of Van Dam. Angered, Cosby wrote to London to accuse Morris of bias. Subsequently, that August, Morris was removed from his position on the Supreme Court. Then, Morris formed an anti-Cosby faction composed of freeholders and professionals. Morris and his followers sought to strike out at their corrupt governor through the use of the press. In conjunction with James Alexander and William Smith, lawyers for Van Dam, Morris approached John Peter Zenger and asked for his help in establishing a newspaper for their cause. Zenger agreed, and The New-York Weekly Journal was established. (Barnett, 34-36)

The New York Weekly Journal was started specifically as a mode of criticism of Governor William Cosby. However, John Peter Zenger was uneducated, and therefore unaware of the scandal or politics of the controversial paper he was printing. Van Dam’s lawyer, James Alexander served as the chief editor. Lewis Morris, William Smith, and Cadwalder Colden, New York’s scientist politician, wrote letters under pseudonyms criticizing the governor. (Levy, 39)

Zenger’s Journal was the first press in America not acting under the supervision of the British monarchy. At this time, the British government did not grant freedom of the press. Thus, no matter what material was printed in this newspaper, it was a true test of the government’s power. (Barnett, 37) In response to this concern, James Alexander justified the Journal’s use of freedom of the press in the paper’s second issue. Alexander’s libertarian theory on the necessity of a free press maintained "if such an over grown Criminal, or an impudent Monster in Iniquity, cannot immediately be come at by ordinary Justice, let him yet receive the lash of satire, let the glaring truth of his ill administration…render his actions odious to all minds." (Levy, 39-40) In this, he spoke directly to Cosby, vindicating that if a man were to go unpunished legally for his actions, then mediums such as the press had the right to punish him as they saw fit.

Accordingly, Cosby subsequently sought to punish Zenger. In 1734, Governor Cosby had Chief Justice James DeLancey attempt to indict Zenger on charges of seditious libel. The grand jury failed to indict Zenger. (Levy, 40) Later that year, Cosby ran for reelection and was defeated. In celebration, Zenger’s press printed anti-Cosby pamphlets. Cosby again had DeLancey attempt to indict Zenger. This time, as previously, the jurors did not do so because they felt that the author of the pamphlets could not be determined. (Barnett, 38)

In response to the two failed indictments of Zenger, Cosby personally attacked him. Cosby ordered that Zenger’s works be burned with the mayor and magistrates serving as witnesses. They refused to do so, and also refused use of the common hangman as the incinerator. Therefore, on November 6, 1734, Cosby’s slave destroyed the works, with British officers as witnesses. (Barnett, 38) Several months later, in January 1735, the attorney general, Richard Bradley, charged Zenger responsible for printing "false, scandalous, malicious, and seditious" libels. In this instance, because the attorney general had charged Zenger, the grand jury system was not used. However, this information was used to initiate a case against Zenger.

One year later, on November 17, 1735, Zenger was arrested and charged that the New York Weekly Journal contained items "tending to raise Factions and Tumults, among the People of this Province, inflaming their Minds with Contempt of His Majesty, and greatly disturbing the Peace thereof." (Barnett, 38) On November 23, Zenger’s lawyers, James Alexander and William Smith, asked for him to be freed on a moderate bail. They contested that the bail be no more than Zenger’s "worth," which was about forty pounds. Judge DeLancey denied this request and set bail at four hundred pounds and two hundred pounds each for the two guarantors. Zenger was not freed on bail. (Barnett, 38) It is thought that the reason rich and influential men like Morris, Alexander, Smith, and Van Dam did not post bail for Zenger was so that he could be seen as a martyr against Cosby’s tyranny and the present form of government. (Barnett, 38) Although Zenger was in jail for nine months, publication of The New York Weekly Journal continued. During visitations with his wife, Zenger gave printing instructions to her. James Alexander then watched over the paper’s publication. (Malone, 649)

Before the start of Zenger’s trial, his lawyers objected to the court consisting of DeLancey and Frederick Philipse, who were both previous Cosby supporters. They felt the court would be bias, and challenged this judicial makeup. As a result, DeLancey disbarred both Alexander and Smith. (Levy, 40-41) DeLancey then appointed John Chambers as a replacement council. Chambers influenced DeLancey to remove the original panel of prejudiced jurors, who were appointed by Cosby. A new, neutral jury was implemented. (Levy, 41)

Specifically, Zenger was charged with seditious libel. Libel is defined as the "defamation of character or reputation in print or by other visual means." This can be traced back to England, where both church and state acted to prevent criticism of their institutions. (Witt, 61) Sedition refers to rebellion against a formal authority. In Zenger’s case, seditious libel was demonstrated through the publication of his newspaper against Governor Cosby. As in all other seditious libel cases, it was difficult to prove the truth of a seditious libel because political opinions and truths differ. The reason libel occurs is because whenever someone speaks freely, someone else may be offended. (Meltzer, 75)

At the beginning of Zenger’s trial on August 4, 1735, Attorney General Bradley opened the case for the prosecution. He spoke to the false, scandalous, malicious, and seditious parts of the Journal, specifically within the January 28, 1734 and April 8, 1734 issues. (Levy, 41) He also reminded jurors that their purpose was to determine whether or not Zenger printed the offensive remarks. It was up to the judges to determine if the information was libelous. After Bradley finished, Zenger’s lawyer, John Chambers, spoke to the jurors on what libel was and told them that he doubted it could be proven what person wrote the libelous statements. After Chambers’ disquisition, an old man in the back of the courtroom rose and said that he would like to defend John Peter Zenger. This man was Andrew Hamilton, who had been contacted by Alexander and Smith, Zenger’s original lawyers. (Barnett, 39)

At the time, Andrew Hamilton had one of the best legal minds in America. Previously, he had been the attorney general of Philadelphia, speaker of the Pennsylvanian assembly, and a vice-admiral judge. He had his own thoughts on politics and religion and was extremely ambitious and confident. Hamilton’s decision to defend Zenger hinged on the case’s alignment with his own political views. At first, it was expected that Judge DeLancey would disbar Hamilton, as he had Alexander and Smith. However, due to Hamilton’s popularity and self-assurance, he did not. (Barnett, 39)

When Bradley began to call his first witnesses to prove that Zenger had published the papers in question, Hamilton interrupted. "I’ll save Mr. Attorney the Trouble of examining his Witnesses to that Point; and I do (for my Client) confess, that he both printed and published the two News Papers set forth in the Information, and I hope in so doing, he has committed no crime." (Barnett, 39)

After Hamilton made Zenger’s confession, Bradley declared that a verdict must be found, because the confession to the accusations had been made. However, Hamilton refuted this declaration. Hamilton explained that in order for the papers to be libelous, they must be false. He stated that the publications were not "false," but that they told the truth. Hamilton agreed that the if the statements were false, they would be libelous, but this was not the case. (Levy, 41) "Words themselves may be libelous, that is false, scandalous or else, we are not guilty." (Barnett, 40)

In response, Bradley argued that any man could be punished if his words were libelous. Criticism of Cosby was just as severe as criticism of the king. Bradley maintained that the British government was a holy institution and Zenger had insulted that. He contended that Zenger had previously insulted that government, and had done the same to Governor Cosby. (Barnett, 40)

Hamilton began his defense by making reference to the Court of Star Chamber under King James I in 1606. Under this organization, secret judges declared that a statement could be libelous, even if it were the truth. This precedent was done away with in 1641. Hamilton argued that DeLancey’s court was therefore following this abolished establishment. (Barnett, 40) Bradley paid little attention to this statement and returned to his original argument. He explained to the jury that Zenger admitted that he had printed the papers. These papers spoke against the government and therefore, must be libelous. (Colbert, 42)

Hamilton responded to Bradley’s comments by urging the jurors to refer back to and look over the paper in question. He asked them, as citizens of New York, to read the information and determine the truth of that information. Hamilton then reminded them that not only would their decision affect John Peter Zenger and the colony of New York, but it would also affect all people living under British rule. Hamilton asserted that by finding Zenger not guilty, they would show that they did not wish to live as slaves, but as freemen. They would be speaking out against tyranny and arbitrary power, such as Cosby’s. Again Chief Justice DeLancey reminded the jurors that their duty was to decide whether or not Zenger’s work was a libel. (Colbert, 43-44) Because Hamilton understood that Zenger was guilty under law, he turned the trial into an examination of Governor Cosby, and used the jury as a court of public opinion to save his client.

Jurors reached their decision in ten minutes. The foreman, Thomas Hunt, announced the verdict. The jury found Zenger "Not Guilty." Immediately, cheers broke out in the courtroom. DeLancey attempted to restore order, but after the failed attempt, he and the other judges left the room in anger. Celebration continued, with supporters hailing Andrew Hamilton. Zenger, however, was unable to be a part of the revelry. The city government refused to release Zenger until the expenses of his imprisonment had been paid. Had this illegal practice become precedent, innocent people could in effect be punished, simply due to their financial circumstance. Luckily for Zenger, his supporters collectively paid for his release the following day. (Barnett, 104)

After the trial’s conclusion, James Alexander and William Smith were readmitted to the bar. John Peter Zenger returned to printing The New York Weekly Journal, which remained a politically controversial newspaper until March 8, 1751. In 1736, Zenger printed James Alexander’s report "A Brief Narrative of the Case and Tryal of John Peter Zenger." This verbatim account was widely read in the colonies and Great Britain. (Malone, 649) Governor Cosby continued to be criticized in Zenger’s paper. (Barnett, 105) In the summer of 1737, with the help of Lewis Morris, Jr., son of the former Chief Justice, Zenger was appointed public printer of New York. A year later, Zenger was appointed to the same office in New Jersey. (Barnett, 105) In August 1746, after Zenger’s death, his wife took over his press until 1748. His son, John Zenger, continued the paper’s publication until March 18, 1751. (Malone, 649)

While it may appear as though Andrew Hamilton was the man responsible for Zenger’s freedom, it was James Alexander who devised the defense plan. This was appropriate because Alexander was the man responsible for writing the seditious information about Governor Cosby. Following his disbarment, Alexander contacted Hamilton and gave him the successful defense plan. (Levy, 125)

After the close of the trial, Alexander’s account of it was responsible for the widespread reputations of both Zenger and Hamilton. This essay included Alexander’s philosophy on freedom of the press, the first such in America. Alexander discussed freedom of the press in a limited monarchy, such as Great Britain, and in an absolute monarchy. In a limited monarchy with a constitution, it is understood that there must be some freedom of the press. However, in an absolute monarchy, it is understood that no such liberty is permitted. He concluded that in the colonies, the press should not be restrained. Also, there are both advantages and disadvantages to a free press. A free press may criticize the government, but can only harm a corrupt one. (Levy, 125)

Alexander advised writers to be distrustful of the present government. Authors should be careful to please those in power, lest they be punished for the publication of their opinions. He felt that the present government should not be left in charge to decide punishments for abuses of the press. His view that truth should be determined before punishments were given for seditious libel provided the basis for libertarians of the 1700’s. (Levy, 127-128) So while Zenger’s trial did not set any legal precedent, it did set an example for the validity of truth, on account of Alexander’s actions during the Zenger trial. (Levy, 130)

Prior to Alexander’s philosophy on freedom of the press, Benjamin Franklin, in 1731, thought that printing simply dealt with publishing opinions, which some would obviously find offense with. Franklin, a printer himself, felt that printers should not be blamed for upsetting people, it was simply their job to publish what made them money. Therefore, Franklin may have practiced freedom of the press, but did not do so for a higher theoretical reason. (Levy, 119-120)

Beginning in 1744, other philosophers presented their theories on freedom of the press. From 1742 to 1768, David Hume wrote a philosophy that contended that a free press could not spur anyone into a dangerous action. He saw "this liberty (freedom of the press)...as the common right of mankind." (Levy, 135) In 1744, Elisha Williams, the speaker of the Connecticut House, supported "the Right (that) everyone (has) to speak his sentiments openly (concerning) such Matters as affect the good of the whole." (Levy, 137) Also in 1744, Jeremiah Gridley wrote an essay, considering freedom of expression concerning public issues a natural right. But like Hume, Gridley failed to consider the legal ramifications. Gridley may have been more forthcoming with his opinion, had he not risked punishment by the government. (Levy 137)

In 1752, The Independent Reflector was published by three New York lawyers- William Livingston, John Morin Scott, and William Smith (one of Zenger’s original legal counsels). This weekly magazine advocated liberties and opposed "superstition, bigotry, priestcraft, tyranny, servitude, public mismanagement, and dishonesty in office." In one editorial by Livingston, entitled "Of the Use, Abuse, and Liberty of the Press," a distinction was drawn between two uses of the press- legitimate and illegitimate. A legitimate press printed no prejudices and therefore promoted the good of society. An illegitimate press promoted superstition and stupidity. When a printer publishes something that negatively affects society, he should be punished. However, if something that is printed offends someone, but does not have a negative impact on society, then that printer does not deserve punishment. (Levy, 138-139)

Several years after Livingston’s view was published, The Independent Reflector’s printer and editor wrote an article against a proposed tax on newspapers in New York. He wrote "where Liberty truly reigns, every one hath a Privilege of declaring his Sentiments upon all Topicks with the utmost Freedom, provided he does it with proper Decency and a just regard to the Laws." This reflected approval of all printed material with the exception of seditious libel. (Levy, 141) Another theory was published in the New York Mercury. In 1754, an article stated that "the press may be abused, yet we have a birthright in them all, and we should be miserable if they were taken from us." This author made the comparison that everything might be abused, such as the Bible, laws, and constitution. Another author of this paper supported the principles of Hamilton and Alexander. He felt that in order for something to be libelous, it must be untrue. (Levy, 140)

A year later, in 1756, an author in the Connecticut Gazette maintained that the press sometimes took advantage of its freedom, but this did not mean that the press should be restrained. Restraining the press would end up harming its very purpose. (Levy, 140-141) That same year, a commentary in the Boston Gazette concluded that putting restraints on any freedoms, such as freedom of the press, would eventually enslave people in order to prevent abuses of their freedom. (Levy, 141) Another contributor to the Boston Gazette, under the pseudonym of "Freeborn America" wrote that the only people entitled to freedom of speech and press were supporters of the American cause against England. He believed a country whose laws "least restrain the words and actions of its members, is most free." A free press should act to properly restrain the power of the government. (Levy, 155-156)

In 1756, freedom of the press once again passed from the theoretical to the practical. That year, a broadside was published, urging people to attend a mass protest against the New York Assembly’s passage of several provisions bills. Outraged, the Assembly and governor offered a reward for the seditious writer. The author was identified as Alexander McDougall. McDougall’s subsequent imprisonment further publicized the principle of freedom of the press, as had the Zenger trial. McDougall was later tried and granted his freedom. (Levy, 76)

The next free press theory came to public notice in 1766. William Bollan, a former advocate-general of Massachusetts, published "The Freedom of Speech and Writing upon Public Affairs, with an Historical View." Bollan’s ideas stemmed from the Zenger trial, and supported the idea of truth being a defense against seditious libel. He felt that free speech and press were necessary in a nation to prevent tyranny. However, there must be boundaries on these freedoms. Bollan’s was the last work concerning freedom of the press until near the close of the 1700’s, at the time when the thirteen colonies became embroiled in the American Revolution. (Levy, 154-155)

Near the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the first document protecting a free press in the Americas was developed. (Schwartz, 1204) The Continental Congress presented this document to the people of Quebec in 1774. "The last right we shall mention regards freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and acts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of government, its ready communication of thought between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officials are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just models of conducting affairs." (Levy, 173-174)

During the American Revolution, no freedom of speech or press existed. Revolutionists followed the mottoes of "inter armas silent leges" (in time of war, the laws are silent) and "fiat justicia ruat coelum" (let justice be done, though heaven fall). (Levy, 173) Although some rights were suspended during the Revolutionary War, people still kept an idea of the type of government they felt should be protected. Both civil and political liberties concerned revolutionists. They believed that these very freedoms should be a part of a newly established government. (Meltzer, 28)

In response to the Second Continental Congress’ decision in May 1776 to suppress royal authority, individual states began to set up their own governments. States were urged to develop their own individual constitutions. (Meltzer, 27) They reacted quickly, not only this request, but also to the Declaration of Independence. This document did not ensure any personal rights, and therefore some states moved to establish protections. (Meltzer, 31) Once written, several state constitutions, including bills of rights, were adopted through elected conventions. (Meltzer, 29)

The first state to establish a constitution was Virginia. The Virginia Declaration of Rights was written by George Mason, a simple, uneducated planter. It was believed by many Virginians that fundamental rights ought to be protected, and this document was therefore adopted in June 1776. The Virginia Declaration of Rights stated that "all men are equally free," while also protecting the specific freedoms of religion and the press. However, specific rights such as speech, assembly, and petition were omitted. This document included more individual liberties than any before. (Meltzer, 29-30) A provision in the Declaration of Rights stated "That the freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments." This inferred that within a free state, freedom of the press must not be restrained. (Levy, 184)

In Pennsylvania, people also believed that their personal freedoms should be protected. A formal declaration made in 1776 in Pennsylvania included all the rights Virginia’s declaration had, but added freedom of speech to accompany press, the right to counsel and the right to bear arms. (Meltzer, 32) In reference to freedom of the press, Pennsylvania’s constitution declared "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore, the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained." Additionally, "The printing presses shall be free to any person who undertakes to examine the proceeding of the legislature, or any part of government." (Levy, 185)

Other states writing constitutions in 1776 were New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Although New Jersey’s constitution did not include a separate bill of rights, it did display the first prohibition in an American constitution, the ban on an established church. Delaware’s constitution included a ban against the quartering of soldiers without owner’s consent. (Meltzer, 32) Along with Delaware, Maryland included a clause "that the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved." (Levy, 184) Maryland declared that no person could be convicted of a crime without a judicial trial. The final state to write a constitution in 1776, North Carolina, guaranteed the right to an indictment. (Meltzer, 32) North Carolina also changed the "ought" of Delaware’s and Maryland’s clauses dealing with freedom of the press to "can." (Levy, 184)

In 1777, four more states wrote constitutions. Both Georgia and New York included bills of rights in their constitutions. These actions pointed out the protection of individual rights in America. (Meltzer, 33) Georgia’s bill of rights contained a general reference to freedom of the press. "Freedom of the press and trial by jury remain inviolate forever." (Levy, 184) The second state to write and adopt a constitution in 1777 was Vermont. This constitution was also the first to abolish slavery. Vermont followed North Carolina’s example and wrote a forceful statement concerning protection of a free press. In 1778, South Carolina wrote its constitution, which did not contain a bill of rights. It did however, delineate many common rights. (Meltzer, 33) One such right, freedom of the press, was vaguely defined. "That the liberty of the press be inviolably preserved." (Levy, 184) One of the last states to write a constitution did so in 1778. Massachusetts’ original constitution did not include a bill of rights and was therefore not adopted. Thus, a constitutional convention was elected and a bill of rights was written. In 1780, a Massachusetts state constitution and bill of rights, written primarily by John Adams, was adopted. (Meltzer, 33) Massachusetts’ clause on freedom of the press stated that "The liberty of the press is essential to the freedom in a state; it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth." This clause was later copied verbatim by New Hampshire. (Levy 184)

Between 1776 and 1789, no state did away with the concept of seditious libel and no state adopted the Zengerian principle of truth as a defense. (Levy, 196) However, by the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, all of the states had established and adopted their own constitutions, some including a bill of rights. (Meltzer, 27) By 1791, a total of eleven states had adopted constitutions with bills of rights, and two states had adopted simply state constitutions. (Meltzer, 32)

In 1776, the Continental Congress proposed a newly organized government under the Articles of Confederation. Under this loose confederation, each state would keep its sovereign independence and maintain control over international affairs. This new form of government did not provide any declaration of individual freedoms, and left the protection of rights to the state leaders, rather than the federal government. (The History Place) The Articles of Confederation were finally ratified by all the states in 1781. (Meltzer, 34)

The Articles of Confederation proved weak and ineffective. Each of the thirteen states acted as a separate nation, rather than a unified body. There was also great discontent. Due to the Revolutionary War, the economy was struggling, farmers were in debt, and the cost of living greatly increased. At times, angry farmers struck out at the government. (Meltzer, 34) One such instance was Shays’ Rebellion in 1787. A bankrupt farmer, Daniel Shays, and over a thousand of his followers, violently prevented Massachusetts courts from holding session against the prosecution of debtors like themselves. The Massachusetts’ state militia was used to scatter Shays’ followers. (The History Place) In response, several writers in Massachusetts published information for the encouragement and support of Shays’ Rebellion. These authors were arrested and charged for publishing "scandalous, seditious" libels against the government. George Brock and Gideon Pond were two of the men indicted on these charges. Although they were not convicted, their arrests showed the need for a national bill of rights. (Levy, 214) As a result of Shays’ Rebellion, people saw the consequence of the lack of a national army, a central power and an organized nation. (Meltzer, 36)

Another court case that showed the need for a national bill of rights was the case of Dr. William Whiting, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas of Berkshire County. In 1786, Whiting wrote an article accusing the government of unjust laws and calling people to "disturb the government." Although this article was never published, it did come to government notice. Whiting was removed from his political post and convicted of seditious libel. He was imprisoned for seven months, levied a steep fine, and monitored for good behavior for five years. (Levy, 214-215)

In Massachusetts in 1791, a newspaper editor, Edmund Freeman was prosecuted for breaching the public peace. He was charged with libeling the private life of a member of the state legislature. Although Freeman was acquitted, the case demonstrated that even though Massachusetts had adopted a bill of rights, it followed the same provisions concerning a free press that it had since the beginning of the century. (Levy, 215)

During the same time in Massachusetts, a two-cent stamp tax was placed on all newspapers. Although this was done to raise money for the financing of the government, people viewed this act as a violation of their constitution. Some also viewed it as a barrier to public discourse. This tax caused widespread political opposition, and was repealed. (Levy, 214)

Because of widespread public discontent, the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 25, 1787 to determine how to reorganize the government into a more effective body. There were fifty-five delegates at the Constitutional Convention, representing all of the states except Rhode Island. (Meltzer, 36) During the meeting, there were no reporters present. It is thought that this is the reason the convention reached such great success, and why so little is known about this time period. (Andrews, 39) Over the course of the four months when the Constitutional Convention met, the Articles of Confederation was abolished, and a new government formed. The new government, detailed in the Constitution, was made up of three government bodies; the judicial, executive, and legislative branches. (Meltzer, 37)

Near the close of the Constitutional Convention, the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, George Mason, spoke of the need for a bill of rights. He proposed that a committee be drawn up to draft a bill of rights, using the states’ bills of rights as models. Mason’s motion was unanimously defeated. It is thought that Philadelphia’s summer heat and the delegates’ prolonged absence from home contributed to the defeat of Mason’s proposal. (Meltzer, 42)

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, fourteen of the fifty-five delegates refused to sign the Constitution, some in reaction to the omission of a bill of rights. George Mason objected because "There is no Declaration of Rights" and "There is no Declaration of any kind for preserving Liberty of the Press." John Francis Mercer, a representative from Maryland, refused to sign because he felt the framers themselves showed contempt for a bill of rights. He too opposed the omission of the guarantee for a free press. (Levy, 235-236)

After the Constitutional Convention had ended, the Constitution was published in newspapers throughout the nation. It was the most widely read publication in the United States because no reporters had been able to advance information previously. (Meltzer, 45) From this publication, great debate arose. Some people were pleased with the Constitution; others were upset that there was no bill of rights.

Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison authored the Federalist papers in support of the Constitution. In the Federalist paper #84, Hamilton remarked to the people of New York "The most considerable remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights." However, Hamilton did not feel that a bill of rights was necessary for the nation to succeed. (Hamilton, 555) Federalists throughout the nation shared this view.

Nevertheless, most public opinion leaned towards the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, an Anti-Federalist. Thomas Jefferson, as well as John Adams, was not present at the Constitutional Convention. Therefore, his opinion was close to that of the public. After looking over a copy of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote to James Madison, one of its framers. Although Jefferson did agree with the new form of government, he began his criticism with "First, the omission of a bill of rights." Additionally, "Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against any government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." (Levy, 230) More specifically, Jefferson criticized the omission of freedom of the press. His own criticism by the press not withstanding, Jefferson supported a free press as a method of keeping the government in check. (First Amendment Center) "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it up to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter." (Witt, 51) James Winthrop of Massachusetts further expressed public sentiment that a bill of rights "serves to secure the minority against the usurpations and tyranny of the majority." (Levy, 233)

Although the majority of Constitutional Convention delegates accepted the Constitution, it still needed to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states. (Meltzer, 44) During the ratification debate of the Constitution, the public was divided between those in favor of a bill of rights protecting civil liberties, and those not in favor of a separate document guaranteeing individual freedoms. As states moved toward ratification, most chose to ratify only with the belief that a bill of rights would be later implemented. (Levy, 234)

The debate between Federalist and Anti-Federalist viewpoints continued through the state ratification process. Such debate was evidenced in the Massachusetts Convention, where discussion between Federalists and Anti-Federalists lasted for more than a month. (Schwartz, 674) At first, Federalists felt that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the government would have no power over individual rights anyway, individual states already had their own documents protecting people’s rights, and the Constitution itself would serve as a bill of rights. (Meltzer, 45) Alexander Hamilton agreed with this view in that "bills of rights...are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted...For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imported?" (Hamilton, 559) Gradually, as the people moved for protection of individual freedoms, Federalists debated whether a bill of rights should be later added to the Constitution, or the Constitution should be altered to include one. (Meltzer, 45)

Anti-Federalists saw government as a potential threat to individual freedoms, and therefore felt those freedoms needed formal protection. (Meltzer, 45) At the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, Robert Whitehill spoke to the fears of governmental interference with individual freedom, "I will agree that a bill of rights may be a dangerous instrument, but it is to the views and projects of the aspiring ruler, and not the liberties of the citizen." (Schwartz, 627) Anti-federalists in several states recommended amendments to the Constitution, none of which were adopted at that time.

In June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, thus virtually putting the Constitution into effect. However it was not until Virginia and New York ratified later that summer when the Constitution was implemented. (Meltzer, 46) Because enough states were concerned with the omission of a bill of rights throughout the ratification process, legislators began to consider drafting a document. Jefferson encouraged Madison to support amendments that included "A declaration that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing anything they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed." (Levy, 250) In response, Madison replied that he did not feel a bill of rights was necessary, but would work for the implementation of one, if desired by the people. (Meltzer, 48)

On June 8, 1789, during a session of the newly created Congress, Madison supported the creation of a bill of rights, and then read his own proposed amendments. (Meltzer, 49-50) The suggested amendments were based on state ratification amendments, especially those of Virginia. Madison made use of strong and effective language to stress the importance contained within this bill of rights. (Meltzer, 50-51) In his proposal, Madison separated free speech from free press to show the importance and significance of each one. (Bragdon, 35)

Beginning on August 13, after a committee had modified Hamilton’s amendments, the House of Representatives began debate on individual amendments. On August 24, the House handed seventeen amendments to the Senate. By September 9, the Senate had reduced the number of amendments to twelve. After the Senate’s approval of the twelve amendments, a conference committee of three members each from the House and Senate met. Here, Madison strengthened the separation of church and state clause contained within the first amendment. On September 25, twelve amendments were handed over to the President. (Meltzer, 51-53)

At this point, the president sent copies of the amendments to the individual states for ratification. Little is known of state ratification debates of the Bill of Rights because there were no official reports on the legal proceedings of that time. During the Bill of Rights ratification, two amendments were eliminated. One amendment dealt with the demographics of congressional districts and representation and one placed a ban on members of Congress voting to change their salaries, an action still debated to this day. Nevertheless, by December 1791, the required three-fourths of the states had ratified the Bill of Rights, and it was put into effect. (Meltzer, 53-54)

The First Amendment of our Bill of Rights states "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 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Bragdon, 115) Freedom of the press was considered essential because the written word was the only way to share information. (First Amendment Center) When freedom of the press, as a part of the Bill of Rights, was implemented, people thought that it was a protection from censorship. This is true in its loosest interpretation. However, in the strictest interpretation of freedom of the press, prior censorship is not considered. Rather, publishers can not be held liable for what they print. (Witt, 51-53)

In a nation based on the will of the people, freedom of the press has been seen as necessary for the common good. It is necessary to change opinions and provide important information, even that which some may find insulting. The vital act of public debate is encouraged through an active free press. (Hall, 808) Nevertheless, individual citizens are still able to bring accusations of libel before the court. (Bragdon, 116) Our first amendment is the most well known and perhaps most important provision of the Bill of Rights. It serves as a cultural symbol reflecting the American ideals of integrity and justice. While most Americans cannot recite the First Amendment, the majority understand its significance and importance in enabling them to speak freely. (Hall, 297) This personal freedom often taken for granted by those who enjoy it most, comes a result of the contributions and sacrifices of John Peter Zenger.