1788.
and while the object of accufation is publicly pointed at, the malicious and malignant author, refts in the difhonorable fecurity of an anonymous fignature. Where much has been faid, fomething will be believed ; and it is one of the many artifices of the libeller, to give to his charges in afpect of general fupport, by changing and multiplying the ftyle and name of his performances. But fhall fuch things be tranfacted with impunity in a free country, and among an enlightened people? Let every honeft man make this appeal to his heart and underftanding, and the anfwer muft be–no! What then is the meaning of the Bill oƒ rights, and the Conʃtitution of Pennʃylvania, when they declare, “ That the freedom of the prefs fhall not be reftrained,” [♦] and “ that the printing preffes fhall be free to every perfon who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the legiflature, or any part of the government? [†]” However, ingenuity may torture the expreffions, there can be little doubt of the juft fenfe of thefe fections: they give to every citizen a right of inveftigating the conduct of thofe who are entrufted with the public bufinefs ; and they effectually preclude any attempt to fetter the prefs by the inftitution of a licenʃer. The fame principles were fettle in England, fo far back as the reign of William the Third, and fince that time, we all know, there has been the freeft animadverfion upon the conduct of the minifters of that nation. But is there any thing in the language of the conftitution (much lefs in its fpirit and intention) which authorizes one man to impute crimes to another, for which the law has provided the mode of trial, and the degree of punifhment? Can it be prefumed that the flanderous words, which, when fpoken to a few individuals, would expofe the fpeaker to punifhment, become facred, by the authority of the conftitution, when delivered to the public through the more permanent and diffufive medium of the prefs? Or, will it be faid, that the conftitutional rights to examine the proceedings of government, extends to warrant an anticipation of the acts of the legiflature, or the judgments of the court? and not only to authorize a candid commentary upon what has been done, but to permit every endeavour to biafs and intimidate with refpect to matters ftill in fufpenfe? The futility of any attempt to eftablifh a conftruction of this fort, muft obvious to every intelligent mind. The true liberty of the prefs is amply fecured by permitting every man to publifh his opinions; but it is due to the peace and dignity of fociety to enquire into the motives of fuch publications, and to diftinguifh between thofe which are meant for ufe and reformation, and with an eye folely to the public good, and thofe which are intended merely to delude and defame. To the latter defcription, it is impoffible that any good government fhould afford protection and impunity.
If, then, the liberty of the prefs is regulated by any juft principle, there can be little doubt, that he, who attempts to raife a prejudice againft his antagonift, in the minds of thofe that muft ultimately
determine
[♦]Declar. of Rights; f. 13.
[†]Conftit. of Penn f. 35.