It is to be observed of these several provisions, that [*415] they recognize certain rights as now existing, and seek to

write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Art. 1, § 8. - New Jersey: Every person may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Art. 1, § 5. Pennsylvania: That the printing-presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the legislature, or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of the liberty. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have a right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Art. 9, § 7, - Delaware: The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of men acting in public capacity, and any citizen may print on any such subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels, the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases. Art. 1, § 5. Maryland: That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved; that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege. Declaration of Rights, Art. 40. West Virginia: No law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press shall be passed; but the legislature may provide for the restraint and punishment of the publishing and vending of obscene books, papers, and pictures, and of libel and defamation of character, and for the recovery in civil action, by the aggrieved party, of suitable damages for such libel or defamation. Attempts to justify and uphold an armed invasion of the State, or an organized insurrection therein during the continuance of such invasion or insurrection, by publicly speaking, writing, or printing, or by publishing or circulating such writing or printing, may be by law declared a misdemeanor, and punished accordingly. In prosecutions and civil suits for libel, the truth may be given in

[* 416] protect and perpetuate * them, by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that they shall remain inviolate. They

-

evidence; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the verdict shall be for the defendant. Art. 2, §§ 4 and 5.- Kentucky: That printingpresses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly, or any branch of the government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In all prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers or men in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have a right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Art. 13, §§9 and 10.— Tennessee: Nearly the same as Pennsylvania. Art. 1, § 19. — Ohio: Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted. Art. 1, § 11. — Iowa, Art. 1, § 7, and Nevada, Art. 1, § 9. Substantially same as Ohio. ·Illinois: Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a sufficient defence. Art. 2, § 4. - Indiana: No law shall be passed restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but for the abuse of that right every person shall be responsible. In all prosecutions for libel, the truth of the matters alleged to be libellous may be given in justification. Art. 1, §§ 9 and 10.- Michigan: In all prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted. The jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Art. 6, § 25. — Wisconsin: Same as New York. Art. 1, § 3. Minnesota: The liberty of the press shall for ever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write, and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right. Art. 1, § 3. — Oregon: No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right. Art. 1, § 8. — California: Same as New York. Art. 1, § 9. — Kansas: The liberty of the press shall be inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write, or publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and in all civil or criminal actions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to

*

do not assume to create new rights, but their purpose is [* 417] to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of those already

the jury; and if it shall appear that the alleged libellous matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted. Bill of Rights, § 11. - Missouri: That the free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man; and that every person may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; that in all prosecutions for libel, the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury may determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court. Art. 1,

§ 27.- Nebraska: Same as New York. Art. 1, § 3. — Arkansas: The liberty of the press shall for ever remain inviolate. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and all persons may freely speak, write, and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted. Art. 1, § 2. Florida: : Every person may freely speak and write his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it appear that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated. Declaration of Rights, § 10. — Georgia: Freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, are inherent elements of political liberty. But while every citizen may freely speak or write or print on any subject, he shall be responsible for the abuse of the liberty. Art. 1, § 9. Louisiana: The press shall be free; every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this liberty. Title 1, Art. 4. North Carolina: The freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained; but every individual shall be held responsible for the abuse of the same. Declaration of Rights, § 20.- South Carolina: All persons may freely speak, write, and publish their sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no laws shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libel the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts. Art. 1, §§ 7 and 8. ·Alabama: That any citizen may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. That in prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and that in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court. Art. 1, §§ 6 and 13.— Mississippi: The freedom of speech and of the press shall be held sacred; and

possessed. We are at once, therefore, turned back from these provisions to the pre-existing law, in order that we may ascertain what the rights are which are thus protected, and what is the extent of the privileges they undertake to assure.

At the common law, however, it will be found that liberty of the press was neither well protected nor well defined. The art of printing, in the hands of private persons, has, until within a comparatively recent period, been regarded rather as an instrument of mischief, which required the restraining hand of the government, than as a power for good, to be fostered and encouraged. Like a vicious beast it might be made useful if properly harnessed and restrained. The government assumed to itself the right to deter

mine what might or might not be published; and censors [* 418] were appointed without whose permission it was criminal to publish a book or paper upon any subject. Through all the changes of government, this censorship was continued until after the Revolution of 1688, and there are no instances in English history of more cruel and relentless persecution than for the publication of books which now would pass unnoticed by the authorities. To a much later day the press was not free to publish even the current news of the day where the government could suppose itself to be interested in its suppression. Many matters, the publication of which now seems important to the just, discreet, and harmonious working of free institutions, and to the proper observation of public officers by those interested in the discharge of their duties, were treated by the public authorities as offences against good order, and contempts of their authority. By a fiction not very far removed from the truth, the Parliament was supposed

in all indictments for libel, the jury shall determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court. Art. 1, § 4. Texas: Every citizen shall be at liberty to speak, write, or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the official conduct of officers or men in a public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Art. 1, §§ 5 and 6. — Virginia: That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments, and any citizen may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. Art. 1, § 14.

to sit with closed doors. No official publication of its debates was provided for, and no other was allowed. The brief sketches which found their way into print were usually disguised under the garb of discussions in a fictitious parliament, held in a foreign country. Several times the Parliament resolved that any such publication, or any intermeddling by letter-writers, was a breach of their privileges, and should be punished accordingly on discovery of the offenders. For such a publication in 1747 the editor of the "Gentleman's Magazine" was brought to the bar of the House of Commons for reprimand, and only discharged on expressing his contrition. The general publication of Parliamentary debates dates only from the American Revolution, and even then was still considered a technical breach of privilege.2

The American Colonies followed the practice of the parent country. Even the laws were not at first published for general circulation, and it seemed to be thought desirable by the magistrates to keep the people in ignorance of the precise boundary *between that which was lawful and that which was pro- [* 419] hibited, as more likely to make them avoid all doubtful actions. The magistrates of Massachusetts, when compelled by public opinion to suffer the publication of general laws in 1649,

1 In 1641, Sir Edward Deering was expelled and imprisoned for publishing a collection of his own speeches, and the book was ordered to be burned by the common hangman. See May's Const. Hist. c. 7.

See May's Constitutional History, c. 7, 9, and 10, for a complete account of the struggle between the government and the press, resulting at last in the complete enfranchisement and protection of the latter in the publication of all matters of public interest, and in the discussion of public affairs. Freedom to report proceedings and debates was due at last to Wilkes, who, worthless as he was, proved a great public benefactor in his obstinate defence of liberty of the press and security from arbitrary search and arrest. A fair publication of a debate is now held to be privileged; and comments on public legislative proceedings are not actionable, so long as a jury shall think them honest and made in a fair spirit, and such as are justified by the circumstances. Wason v. Walter, Law Rep. 4 Q. B. 73.

The General Court of Massachusetts "appointed two persons, in October, 1662, licensers of the press, and prohibited the publishing any books or papers which should not be supervised by them, and in 1668 the supervisors having allowed of the printing 'Thomas à Kempis de imitatione Christi,' the court interposed, it being wrote by a popish minister, and containing some things less safe to be infused among the people,' and therefore they commended to the licensers a more full revisal, and ordered the press to stop in the mean time." 1 Hutchinson's Mass. 257, 2d ed.