United States: The Death Of Alexander Hamilton And The Birth Of The American Free Press

Last Updated: July 8 2016
Article by David A. Kluft

Alexander Hamilton has more to do with American independence than you might think. His efforts as a Founding Father (the hottest Founding Father on Broadway, it should be noted) helped the United States achieve political independence from Great Britain.  But Hamilton also made a vital contribution towards helping the American justice system declare jurisprudential independence from the English courts, particularly with regard to defamation and free speech. Hamilton made this lesser-known contribution not as a member of the cabinet or as an author of the Federalist Papers, but as a trial lawyer a few months before his death. In fact, the case of People v. Croswell led to his death.

"To lash the rascals naked through the world"

The story is set in the midst of the intense party factionalism during the presidency of John Adams. James Callender, a Virginia journalist and pamphleteer, allied himself with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson and printed nasty diatribes against Adams (who he called a "hoary-headed incendiary") and George Washington (who he labeled a "traitor, robber and a perjurer"). In 1800, the Adams administration prosecuted Callender under the Sedition Act, and Callender was sent to jail for several months.

Callender emerged from jail on the very day Jefferson assumed the presidency, March 4, 1801, and sought a patronage job from the new administration. When no job was forthcoming, Callender turned his pamphleteering skills on Jefferson with a vengeance. In September 1802, Callender broke the story in the Richmond Recorder that Jefferson had fathered five children out of wedlock by an enslaved woman named Sally Hemmings. Jefferson reportedly avoided directly confronting this accusation.

However, Jefferson wasn't so shy about confronting another accusation printed by Callender: Callender claimed that the only reason he used to print all that seditious stuff about Adams and Washington was because Jefferson paid him $100 to do it. This bribery accusation was reprinted in Federalist-leaning newspapers around the country, including The Wasp, a Hudson Valley paper published by twenty-four year old Harry Crosswell, the motto of which was: "To lash the rascals naked through the world." Jefferson admitted that the $100 payment was made, but claimed it was nothing more than charity: he felt sorry for Callender because of his criminal conviction.  The Wasp commented on this explanation with blunt disdain:

No! He [Callender] is the very man, that an aspiring mean and hallow hypocrite [Jefferson] would press into the service of crime. He is precisely qualified to become a tool – to spit the venom and scatter the malicious, poisonous slanders of his employer. He, in short, is the very man that a dissembling patriot, pretended 'man of the people' would employ to plunge for him the dagger or administer the arsenic.

"Being a Seditious and Malicious Man"

Jefferson and his allies could have called quits to politically-motivated prosecutions of the press under the Sedition Act; prosecutions they decried when brought against the newspapers they liked. Instead, the Democratic-Republicans took the decidedly low road. According to New York Court of Appeals Chief Court Attorney Paul McGrath in his fascinating article, People v. Croswell, Alexander Hamilton and the Transformation of the Common Law of Libel, Jefferson political ally and future Governor DeWitt Clinton set out to make an example of The Wasp. Seditious libel charges were initiated against Croswell in a New York state court, accusing him of:

[B]eing a malicious and seditious man, of a depraved mind and wicked and diabolical disposition, and also deceitfully, wickedly and maliciously devising contriving and intending, Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America, to detract from, scandalize, traduce, vilify and to represent him, the said Thomas Jefferson, as unworthy of the confidence of the people of said United States . . .

But truth is a defense, right?

Croswell informed the Court that he intended to assert the truth as a defense, and needed time to secure the testimony of James Callender, who could confirm that Jefferson really did bribe him to attack his political opponents. However, the Court refused to allow the time to secure this evidence because it would be inadmissible and irrelevant.

Irrelevant? But truth is a defense to libel, right? Actually, no. Truth had once been a defense in libel actions in England prior to the 17th Century, and at least as far back as the Second Century Roman lawyer Julius Paulus Prudentissimus. However, that all changed when English monarchs transformed the Star Chamber, a court sitting without a jury at the Palace of Westminster, into a powerful vehicle for the suppression of speech. Facing the unprecedented impact of the printing press on political discourse, the Star Chamber eliminated truth as a defense to libel because, as the Croswell prosecution put it, "a libel is punishable, not because it is false, but because of its evil tendency; its tendency to a breach of the peace."

Even after the Star Chamber was abolished in 1641, other Westminster courts continued to follow many of the same precepts, which were in turn received into New York law in 1777 by Section 14 of the New York State Constitution. Creative arguments against following the English law of defamation had been made previously in American colonial courts, most notably by Andrew Hamilton in the famous Zenger trial in 1733, but even after independence American judges still looked to the English courts — and to the high courts of Westminster in particular — to define the common law. Thus, at the time of the Croswell trial, the judge proclaimed it "settled [law] that the truth could not be given in evidence to the jury" as a defense to libel.

At trial, over the objections of defense counsel, the Court charged the jury with only two questions: whether or not Croswell had written the articles containing the accusations against Jefferson, and whether the articles were harmful to Jefferson. The Court reserved for itself all other questions, including intent, on the grounds that they were issues of law. Finally, the Court reserved for nobody the question of whether the accused statements were true or false, because that was deemed irrelevant.  The jury, so instructed, had little choice but to convict Croswell for criminal libel.

Before he could be sentenced, Croswell moved for a new trial and the motion was slated to be heard before a panel of four judges of the New York Supreme Court of the Judicature. The panel was only comprised of four judges — not the usual five — because the prosecutor in the case, Democratic-Republican Ambrose Spencer, was elevated to the position of Associate Justice while the matter was pending. Of the four remaining judges, only one was considered to have Federalist leanings.

Hamilton's Strategy

With the decks stacked against him, Croswell added Alexander Hamilton to his defense team. As historian Kate Elizabeth Brown opined in her excellent work, Rethinking People v. Croswell, Hamilton's strategy was not to ask "the court to change the rule of criminal libel," but to declare "what the law of criminal libel was in the first place." In other words, Hamilton didn't argue that truth should be a defense to libel, but that it always has been. In order to do so, Hamilton had to redefine what the "common law" meant in American jurisprudence.

During a two-day hearing in a packed Albany courtroom in February 1804, Hamilton argued that the Star Chamber was a "polluted source" of law to be disregarded and "not the court from which we are to expect principles and precedents friendly to freedom." Rather, Hamilton argued, the Court should look to "the application of natural law to the state and condition of society," as reflected in older sources of English law and even in American law, such as the United States Constitution and acts of the New York legislature. Hamilton was proposing that the judges declare their independence from the courts of Westminster and make their own judgment about what the law was.  If they did, Hamilton argued, they would find that "liberty of the press consists in the right to publish, with impunity, truth, with good motives, [and] for justifiable ends," and that this liberty "is essential to the preservation of a free government."

New York Supreme Court Justice James Kent agreed.  Kent held that "the rule denying permission to give the truth in evidence was not an original rule of the common law."  Kent went on to state that:

But, whatever may be our opinion on the English law, there is another and a very important view of the subject to be taken, and that is with respect to the true standard of the freedom of the American press. In England, they have never taken notice of the press in any parliamentary recognition of the principles of the government, or of the rights of the subject, whereas the people of this country have always classed the freedom of the press among their fundamental rights.

With Judge Kent (the lone Federalist) leading the way, the panel initially appeared to be leaning towards the retrial Hamilton wanted. At one point, Judge Brockholst Livingston announced in open court that he was going to vote in favor of Croswell. However, Livingston inexplicably changed his mind at the last minute. In May 1804, the Court announced that it was deadlocked at 2-2, which meant that Crosswell's conviction stood. Judge Livingston didn't show up to work that day, purportedly due to illness.

Then Nothing Happened

But then something strange happened: nothing. The prosecution did not move for judgment. No sentencing hearing was held or requested. The case just sat there.

Well, ok, something happened, but that something explains why nothing happened. By this time, it was clear that the public was firmly opposed to the prosecution, and what's the point of a politically motivated lawsuit when its hurting you politically? In fact, a month before the Court announced the deadlock, the New York legislature was already considering libel reform legislation in response to Croswell's predicament. The following year, a new statute was enacted, providing that truth was a defense to a libel charge, and that the defendant has a right to have a jury decide the elements of the offense.

After the new legislation passed, the New York Supreme Court changed its mind and unanimously ordered a new trial. But by this time, a new trial was in nobody's interest. As for Croswell, he may have been tempted to vindicate himself, but his key witness, James Callender, had drowned in suspicious circumstances while the matter was pending.

As for the prosecution, not only was public sentiment headed in the other direction but, by the time a retrial would have occurred, the prosecution was facing what today we would call "bad optics." The first bad optic was that Jefferson decided to elevate Judge Livingston to the next open seat on the United States Supreme Court, suggesting a quid pro quo. The second bad optic was that Jefferson's new Vice President ( George Clinton) was the uncle of the man who had initiated the prosecution.

And then there was the mother of all bad optics: Jefferson's first Vice President, Aaron Burr, had just shot and killed the defense counsel. When Hamilton was in Albany for oral argument in February, he had dinner with some of the judges in the case and let slip a few nasty remarks about Burr. This got back to Burr, who challenged Hamilton to a duel, which took place in July 1804. Less than two months after the deadlock decision was announced, and over a year before Croswell's retrial was granted, Hamilton was dead.

Harry Croswell fared a little better than his lawyer. He was eventually convicted, but not for libel. Croswell went to debtors prison in 1811. He came out of prison a religious man, and spent the rest of his long life as an Episcopal minister. While it's true that he and Hamilton lost the case, and that but for the case Hamilton may have lived to a ripe old age, their efforts nevertheless accomplished a great deal. They erased hundreds of years of bad defamation law, solidified the cherished place of freedom of the press in the U.S. psyche, and helped American jurisprudence declare independence from a lockstep imitation of the English courts.

To view Foley Hoag's Trademark and Copyright Law Blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
12 Oct 2018, Other, Boston, United States

The New England Electricity Restructuring Roundtable has been meeting bimonthly since 1995 to discuss current topics related to important changes in the electric power industry in Massachusetts and throughout New England.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions