The Copy Book

Servants of the People

A US Congressman tells the House why they mustn’t censor the press.

Part 1 of 2

July 1798
In the Time of

King George III 1760-1820

Back to text

Servants of the People

By Gilbert Stuart (1755–1828), via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain. Source

US President John Adams, by Gilbert Stuart.

X

John Adams (1735-1826), US President from 1797 to 1801. A common argument for the Sedition Act was that it was merely protecting the President and his team from libel. “Because the Constitution guarantees the right of expressing our opinions,” said John Allen, “and the freedom of the press, am I at liberty falsely to call you a thief, a murderer, an atheist?” Opponents pointed out that the passage which had so enraged Allen had labelled Adams nothing worse than “without patriotism, without philosophy, without a taste for the fine arts” — hardly comparable with a charge of theft or murder.

Back to text

US President John Adams, by Gilbert Stuart.

Enlarge & read more...
By Gilbert Stuart (1755–1828), via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.

John Adams (1735-1826), US President from 1797 to 1801. A common argument for the Sedition Act was that it was merely protecting the President and his team from libel. “Because the Constitution guarantees the right of expressing our opinions,” said John Allen, “and the freedom of the press, am I at liberty falsely to call you a thief, a murderer, an atheist?” Opponents pointed out that the passage which had so enraged Allen had labelled Adams nothing worse than “without patriotism, without philosophy, without a taste for the fine arts” — hardly comparable with a charge of theft or murder.

Introduction

In July 1798, the Government of American President John Adams laid a Bill before Congress designed to criminalise criticism in the press. Censorship of this kind was all too familiar in England, then as now, but the debate in the US House of Representatives deserves careful reading, if only for the magnificent principle here laid down by Edward Livingston, Congressman for New York’s 2nd District.

MR LIVINGSTON said, after receiving the chastisement of the gentleman from Connecticut on one cheek, he, like a good Christian, had turned the other to the gentleman from South Carolina, and received the stripes of both.* He expressed his acknowledgments to these gentlemen, however, if not for their chastisement, for the insight which they have given the House into this bill.* They have said its design is not only to restrict the liberty of the press, which is secured by the Constitution,* but the liberty of speech on this floor. The gentleman from South Carolina did not say explicitly that he wished this; but he said he was regardless* of what was said in the public papers, either of private or personal slander, or of a slander on the Government, until he heard a certain speech delivered in this House;* and, though he said he did not intend to restrict the liberty of speech in this House, he must have had something of the kind in view.

Mr Harper said it was not his intention to restrict the freedom of speech on that floor, but the consequences of it out of doors.

Continue to Part 2

* The dramatis personae of this part of the debate reads: for the Bill, John Allen (Kentucky), Robert G. Harper (South Carolina), Harrison Gray Otis (Massachussets), and Samuel W. Dana (Connecticut); against the Bill, Edward Livingston (New York), who was backed up by John Nicholas (Virginia), Nathaniel Macon (North Carolina), Joseph McDowell (North Carolina) and Albert Gallatin (Pennsylvania).

* The Bill promised heavy punishment “if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government” or “write, print, utter or publish ... any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States.”

* Opponents insisted that the law broke what was then the Third (and now the First) Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees free speech: “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 the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

* In the sense of having no strong opinion regarding it.

* That speech, as we learn a little later, had been made by Livingston.

Word Games

Sevens Based on this passage

Suggest answers to this question. See if you can limit one answer to exactly seven words.

Why was Livingston glad that his opponents has abused him so freely?

Suggestion

Variations: 1.expand your answer to exactly fourteen words. 2.expand your answer further, to exactly twenty-one words. 3.include one of the following words in your answer: if, but, despite, because, (al)though, unless.

Jigsaws Based on this passage

Express the ideas below in a single sentence, using different words as much as possible. Do not be satisfied with the first answer you think of; think of several, and choose the best.

Journalists harshly criticised the Government. The Government resented it. They made it illegal.

Variation: Try rewriting your sentence so that it uses one or more of these words: 1. Express 2. Prosecute 3. Smart

Post Box : Help Available

If you like what I’m doing here on Clay Lane, from time to time you could buy me a coffee.

Buy Me a Coffee is a crowdfunding website, used by over a million people. It is designed to help content creators like me make a living from their work. ‘Buy Me a Coffee’ prides itself on its security, and there is no need to register.