22 INTRODUCTION. 
from one of the epistles of Peter, to show that it was a very great offence to 
speak evil of dignities;” and insisted upon the criminality by the “laws of God 
and man, of reviling those in authority, and consequently that Mr. Zenger had 
offended in a most notorious and gross manner, in scandalizing his excellency our 
governor, who, said the counsel, is the king’s immediate representative and su- 
preme magistrate of this province.” Mr. Hamilton remarked in his reply, that 
we are charged with printing and publishing a certain false, malicious, seditious 
and scandalous libel. ‘The word fa/se must have some meaning, or else how 
came it there; and he put the case, whether if the information had been for 
printing a certain érue libel, would that be the same thing? “ And to show the 
court that I am in good earnest,” said he, “I will agree, that if he can prove the 
facts charged upon us to be false, I will own them to be scandalous, seditious and a 
libel.” He then further offered, that to save the prosecution the trouble of prov- 
ing the papers to be false, the defendant would prove them to be true. To this, 
chief justice De Lancey objected, “ You cannot be admitted to give the truth of 
a libel in evidence; the law is clear that you cannot justify a libel.” Mr. Hamilton 
maintained, that leaving the court to determine whether the words were libellous 
or not, rendered juries useless or worse. “It was true,” he said, “in times past, 
it was a crime to speak truth, and in that terrible court of star-chamber many 
worthy and brave men suffered for so doing; and yet even in that court, and in 
those bad times, a great and good man durst say, what I hope will not be taken 
amiss in me to say in this place, to wit, ‘The practice of information for libels 
is a sword in the hands of a wicked king and an arrant coward, to cut down and 
destroy the innocent. The one cannot, because of his high station, and the other 
dare not, because of his want of courage, defend himself in another manner.’” * 
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of not guilty, to the great 
mortification of the court and of Zenger’s persecutors, but with great satisfaction 
* Nearly 70 years afterwards, another Hamilton maintained this great and now undeniable principle with eloquence 
and power, which may be said to have conquered at last this great concession to the liberty of the press. 
