Papers of John Adams, volume 19

To John Adams from John Murray, 10 February 1789 Murray, John Adams, John
From John Murray
Glouster Feby. 10— 1789

How grateful, how thankful, this moment I feel— To who, for what? To the infinitely good, the infinitely great, who, having the hearts of all in his hand, hath in the course of his Providence, dis-posed one of the best, one of the greatest of his speies to feel kindly disposed towards his humble thankful servant.

You will, good Sir, (I might had said great, but great you may be, and not good, and then, little as I am, I shall neither be grateful or thankful for your condescending notice) be at a loss to concieve why I thus address you— Alass, Sir, you must submit to a thousand im-pertinent addresses— You are going to asscend an eminance where, when seated, the eyes of multitudes will be fixt upon you, and you 381 will look down upon them, not with contempt, but with pity. I venture to present myself before you, I presume, if not the first, in the very first line. I present myself before you, not only to offer my sincere congratulations on your being called by your lov’d, your grateful Country to fill so important a station, where, acting yourself, you must do good unto all, and be the public Benefactor of the Continent—where, after serving your Country—(not yourself, or, rather, in serving that Country, more effectually serving yourself by indulging your finer feelings) in the first Courts of the Elder world, you will now, have an opportunity of giving being to the first Court in the new world, where honor and honesty will take up their residence, never, I trust, in future to be considered a stranger there.

But what, you will say does all this tend to— first, without any doubt, the gratification of myself— I have alway found pleasure in declaring the Truth. secondly—I embrace this opportunity to gratify my Friend—

I have dear Sir, a Friend in this place, who I really think feels a strong affection for your Humble servant— I, therefore, you will readily conclude feel a strong affection for him— now this Friend hearing me so often dwell with delight on your praises, took it in his head that you had honored me with your friendly attention, and convinced I am his Friend he wished to oblige me by giving me an opportunity of obliging him by soliciting your kind condescending assistance to put him into the place of Naval Officer in this Town.

The friend, then, I have the honor to solicit your favor on the behalf of is one of the first characters in this Town, and tho’ the son of one who was not a Whig (Mr Epes Sargent) yet this Mr. Epes Sargent Junr. has been himself, from the begining a very stanch one, and but for some reasons that you, dear Sir, as a Father, must approve of, would on sundry occasions have consented to gratify the Electors of this Town in representing them in the general Court.1

The place he would wish to occupy is not a very lucrative one, but his business is small, and his Family large— small, however, as the place is, I make no doubt but there will be a plurality of Petitioners anxious to obtain it— as you, dear Sir, will have but one wish—to do good—first for your Country in general, next for the most deserving members of the Community in particular, I venture to incourage hope you will do what in your own wisdom you see fit, to put into the naval Office, the Friend of him, who have the honor to be with very respectful, and sincere regard / Your most obedient, / most devoted, / Humble Servant

John Murray
382

I beg leave to add, that, I am requested by Mrs. Murray to beseech you to allow her to accompany me in sincere gratulations, on the present occasion. she also begs she may be indulged with the favor of presenting, with your humble servant, her most grateful Compliments to your ever Amiable Lady and the lovely Youth she had the pleasure of seeing in your hospitable Mansion—2

RC (Adams Papers).

1.

Murray, minister of the Independent Church of Christ in Gloucester, Mass., and a founder of American Universalism, recommended a member of his congregation, Epes Sargent Jr. (1748–1822), Harvard 1766, a former privateer and the son of loyalist merchant Epes Sargent Sr. (vol. 17:211; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 16:422–424). The younger Sargent wrote to JA on 26 Jan. (Adams Papers), soliciting a post as “Naval Officer, or the principal department of the Customs for this Port.” Although JA made no reply, the younger Sargent was appointed revenue collector of Gloucester in 1790, a position he held until 1795.

2.

Gloucester-born author Judith Sargent Stevens (1751–1820) married Murray on 6 Oct. 1788, and they visited the Adamses at Peacefield the following day. JQA found Judith Murray to be “agreeable, though she appears a little tinctured with what the french call le precieux.” After penning essays for the Massachusetts Magazine in the 1790s, she anthologized her writings in a three-volume work, The Gleaner, Boston, 1798, Evans, No. 34162 ( ANB ; JQA, Diary , 2:457; Selected Writings of Judith Sargent Murray, ed. Sharon M. Harris, N.Y., 1995, p. xxi). She first sought JA’s patronage for The Gleaner on 1 Nov. 1796 (Adams Papers).

To John Adams from Abraham Fuller, 12 February 1789 Fuller, Abraham Adams, John
From Abraham Fuller
Hond Sir Newton Feby 12th. 1789

Since I made the last return of the number of Polls in the Commonwealth, to your Honr, I find a Mistake of 45 Polls, being Short of the number in the County of York, they being Added to the County of York makes the number 4944; than the whole number in the Commonwealth is 90513—1

Your Honr. most Obedient & / Huml. Servant

A Fuller

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Hon’ John Adams Esqr.”

1.

Abraham Fuller (1720–1794) represented Newton in the Mass. General Court from 1764 to 1782 (John A. Schutz, Legislators of the Massachusetts General Court, 1691–1780: A Biographical Dictionary, Boston, 1997). Fuller wrote to JA on 6 Feb. 1789 (Adams Papers) explaining that there was an error in the polling data printed in Fleet’s Pocket Almanack 1789, namely, that York Co., Mass., (now Maine) had 4,856 polls, and the total for the commonwealth was 94,579 (p. 60).

To John Adams from William Cushing, 18 February 1789 Cushing, William Adams, John
From William Cushing
Dear Sir— Boston Feby the 18th. 1789.

I know you will forgive me if I draw your attention, a moment, from the weighty matters that employ it, to the Subject of libels & 383 liberty of the press; on which I had the pleasure of a word with you— lately.1 Our 16th. Art. of declaration of rights, holds forth that, “The liberty of the press is essential to the Security of freedom in a state,” and that—“it ought not, therefore, to be restrained within this Commonwealth.2 I confess I have had a difficulty about the construction of it; which no Gentleman better than yourself can, in a word, clear up. My question is this—Whether it is consistent with this article, to deem & adjudge any publications of the press, punishable as libels, that may arraign the conduct of persons in office, charging them with instances of male conduct repugnant to the duty of their offices & to the public good & Safety;—when such charges are supportable by the truth of fact? By the law of England, it seems clear, that, in a civil action for damages, a libel must appear to be false as well as Scandalous; & the truth of an accusation may be pleaded in bar of a Suit, whether brought for words or for a libel. 4 Black. 150, & Elsewhere.3

But on an indictment for a libel, it is held to be immaterial, whether the matter of it be true or false. And this law, Judge Blackstone says, is founded solely, upon the tendency of libels to create animosities & to disturb the public peace; & that the provocation, & not the falsity, is the thing to be punished criminally. And some books say, the provocation is the greater—if true. The consequence of all which is, that a man ought to be punished more for declaring truth, than for telling lies, in case the truth contains a charge of criminality against any one.

However in the case of the 7 bishops, Mr. Just. P., who, Ld. Camden said, was the only honest man upon the bench at that time, held that, to make the petition a libel it must be false &c, & that the case turned upon the truth of the assertion, that the dispensing power claimed by the King was illegal: & he held the position of the bishops true & right as to ecclesiastical laws & all other laws whatsoever. He was overruled indeed by the other Judges, especially by Ch. Just. Wright, & Allybone; the former laying it down, that whatever disturbed the government or made mischief or a Stir among the people, was within the case of libellis famosis, & whether true or false, was a libel. Allybone, asserted, that a private man, taking upon him to write any thing concerning government, was an intruder into other mens matters, & was a libeller. But the dernier resort, the Jury overruled all & set them right. The indictment in that case charged the petition to be a false writing—& I believe no indictment for a libel was ever framed, without an allegation of falsity. Which, with the reason 384 of the thing, may be some apology for Just. P.’s mistaking the law.4 It must be confessed that, as the law of England now stands,—truth cannot be pleaded in bar of an indictment, though it may, of a civil action, for a libel.—

The question is—whether it is law now, here. The 6th. Art. of the last chap. of our Constitution, is—that all laws heretofore adopted & usually practiced on in the Courts here, shall remain; excepting only such parts as are repugnant to the rights & liberties of this Constitution. By the spirit & implication of this Article, laws of England not usually practiced on here, are not to have force with us, & laws actually practiced on, but repugnant to the Constitution, are set aside. If therefore that point has never been adjudged here (& I do not know that it has been) we are at liberty to judge upon it de novo, upon the reason of the thing & from what may appear most beneficial to Society. And in that case, it strikes me as it did honest Powel, that falsity must be a necessary ingredient in a libel. But to come to our article, respecting liberty of the press: the words of it being very general & unlimited, what guard or limitation can be put upon it? Doubtless it may & ought to be restrainable from injuring characters; which is one principal object & end of other articles & of government. But charging a man, by word, writing or printing, with a crime, of which he is really guilty, is—damnum absque injuria, as Blackstone & others justly observe. And in general, no doubt, it may be restrained from injuring the public or individuals, by propagating falshoods. But when the article says—“The liberty of the press is essential to the Security of freedom,” and, “it ought not to be restrained” does it not comprehend a liberty to treat all Subjects & characters freely within the bounds of truth? Judge Black, says, (4, Vol. p. 151) the liberty of the press consists—“in laying no previous restraints upon publications,” & not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. wherein he refers to a public Licenser or inspector of the press. That is, no doubt, the liberty of the press,—as allowed by the law of England. But the words of our Article, understood according to plain English & common sense—make no such distinction, & must exclude subsequent restraints—as much as, previous restraints. In other words, if all men are restrained, by the fear of jails, Scourges & loss of ears, from examining the conduct of persons in administration, and, where their conduct is illegal, tyrannical & tending to overthrow the constitution & introduce Slavery, are so restrained from declaring it to the public; that will be as effectual a restraint, as any previous restraint whatever.

385

The question upon the article is—What is that “Liberty of the press which is essential to the Security of freedom”?

The propagating literature & knowledge by printing or otherwise, tends to illuminate mens minds, & to establish them in principles of liberty. But it cannot be denied also—that a free Scanning the conduct of Administration, & Shewing the tendency of it, & where truth will warrant, making it manifest, that it is subversive of all law, liberty & the constitution; it cannot be denied, I think, that this liberty tends “to the Security of freedom in a State;” even more directly & essentially, than the liberty of printing upon literary & Speculative subjects in general. Without this liberty of the press, could we have supported our liberties against british Administration? or could our revolution have taken place? pretty certain, it could not at the time it did. Under a Sense & impression of this Sort I conceive this article, was adopted. This liberty of publishing truth can never effectually injure a good government or honest administrators; but it may save a state & prevent the necessity of a revolution, as well as bring one about when it is necessary. It may be objected—that a public prosecution is the regular course—in case of malefeasance. But what single man would undertake such an invidious & dangerous task against a man high in interest, influence & power? But the liberty of the press, when it has truth for its basis, who can stand before it? Besides, it may facilitate a legal prosecution that is well-founded, which might not otherwise have been dared to be attempted. When the press is made the vehicle of falshood & scandal, let the authors be punished with becoming rigour. But Why need any honest man be afraid of truth? The guilty only fear it—and I cannot but be inclined to think with Gordon (in his letter upon Libels vol. 3. No. 28. of Cato’s Letters) that truth sacredly adhered to, in all cases without exception can never upon the whole prejudice right religion equal government, or a government founded upon proper ballances & checks, or the happiness of society in any respect; but must promote them all.5 Suppressing this liberty I am speaking for, by penal laws; will it not carry greater danger to freedom, than it will do good to government? The weight of government is Sufficient to prevent any very dangerous consequences occasioned by provocations resulting from charges founded in truth, whether such charges are made in a legal course, or otherwise.

But not to trouble you with a multiplicity of words; If I am wrong, I should be glad to be set right. Experiencing the happiness of your friendship upon former occasions, gives me a kind of further claim 386 upon it.— However I would not wish to intrude upon your busy hours, devoted to more important matters; & especially as you are to be speedily called to the weighty concerns of a high office in the fœderal government—not, indeed, as head, but to be a pillar to support the head & the whole fabrick;—an office, to which no man can dispute the ground of your title, as on other accounts, so particularly for the share you have had (greater in many respects, I suppose, than any other) at home and abroad, from the beginning to the conclusion, in the late revolution.— The point now is a stable government, which is to be in motion soon, & I heartily wish you Success.— I am Sir, your affectionate friend & humble Servant—

Wm Cushing—

RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “To / The honble. John Adams / Esqr. LL.D.”; endorsed: “C.J. Cushing / ansd. March 7. 1789.”

1.

Cushing (1732–1810), Harvard 1751, served as chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts since 1777 ( AFC , 1:112; 6:325).

2.

Cushing quoted from Art. 16 of the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

3.

Here and in his discussion of freedom of the press, below, Cushing quoted from William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols., Oxford, 1765–1769, 4:150, 151.

4.

In June 1688, seven Anglican bishops were prosecuted for seditious libel after presenting a petition to King James II asserting that he could not require them to read his declaration of indulgence. The four presiding judges were chief justice Sir Robert Wright (ca. 1634–1689), Sir Richard Allibone (1636–1688), Sir Richard Holloway (1627–1699), and Sir John Powell (1633–1696). Allibone advised the jury that whether the petition was true or false was irrelevant. Powell argued that the truth mattered. Holloway upheld the right of petition and stated that the bishops were not guilty of sedition because they lacked intent. Wright, who found the petition libelous, was troubled by a wave of popular support for the defendants. With the King’s Bench split, the jury acquitted the bishops. Reflecting on the case in 1763, Chief Justice Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden, observed that Powell was the “only honest man of the four judges” in the seven bishops’ trial ( DNB ; William Gibson, James II and the Trial of the Seven Bishops, N.Y., 2009, p. 115, 116, 127, 142; T. B. Howell, comp., A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors, 34 vols., London, 1811–1828, 19:990).

5.

[John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon], Cato’s Letters, 4 vols., London, 1723–1724, 3:248.