Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/413

 380

rule which made the Zenger case noted in the jurisprudence of New York. A sketch of that case may be of interest. In 1734. Zenger was prosecuted for a libel upon the Governor and Council of the Prov ince of New York, and the numbers of his paper containing the articles were ordered by the same Governor to be, and were, burned by the hangman. Zenger was arrested, but admitted 'to bail to await the action of the grand jury, which failing to indict, the Attorney-General proceeded against him by information. Zenger's counsel filed a plea which questioned the legal existence of the court, for which temerity the judges promptly disbarred them. Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia then volunteered to defend Zenger. He pleaded not guilty, and Mr. Hamilion offered to prove the truth of the libel. The: court rejected the evidence; and then Mr. Hamil ton, with great courtesy but very persistently, claimed that it was the right of the jury to determine whether the article was libellous, — in other words, to determine the law. The court denied this right; and a very stormy and undignified legal battle ensued between the judges and the Attorney-General on one side, and Mr. Hamilton on the other. Dis regarding the threats of the court, Mr. Hamilton persisted in reading his authorities and in making his argument, apparently to the court, but really to the jury. His vital point was that the jury should not find the respondent guilty unless they were satisfied that the articles were libellous. This claim was furiously combated by the Attorney-General and the judges, who instructed the jury that the articles were a gross libel. But the judges did not quite venture to take the case from the jury, who promptly acquitted the respondent. " Upon which," says Zenger in his report of the

trial, " there were three huzzas in the hall, which was crowded with people, and the next day I was discharged from my imprisonment." "Under a grateful sense of the remarkable service done to the inhabitants of the city and colony," the mayor and aldermen, on the 1 6th of September, 1735, voted that the freedom of the city in a gold box should be presented to Mr. Hamilton, and the presen tation was afterward duly made. The ill success of this attempt to punish a man for publishing the truth about a public officer, led to the removal of the danger by statute, permitting the truth to be given in evidence in actions and prosecu tions for libel. If all the States were as fortunate in their judiciaryasMassachusetts.no counsel would desire to appeal from the decision of the court on a question of law to the jury. A murder trial has recently taken place in that State which has produced a profound impression upon the bar. A trial occupying almost a fortnight, presenting many close questions of the law of circumstantial evidence, has been tried, with scarcely an exception to a decision of the court upon questions arising in the progress of the trial. The conduct of the counsel has been marked by great ability and respect to the court and each other. The jury has returned a verdict which completely satisfies the public. The whole conduct of the trial, I think, has been marked by a spirit expressed in a remark of one of the judges, when informed that the jury had agreed upon a verdict: "God grant that they have come to a just decision!" To me the trial of Lizzie Borden appears to be a high credit to the counsel and the court, an honor to Massachusetts, and a model for the imitation of other courts and counsel in similar cases.