Power of the Press: The Bradford & Freemason Rivalry in Provincial America
Author’s Note: Admittedly, I almost considered not publishing this Article. At a cursory glance and by reading through the first few pages, one might assume that this publication is yet another tale about the complicated life of Benjamin Franklin. It is not and my initial concern was that this might turn off readers who stopped after the first few pages. In this author’s opinion, one of the worst things done in recounting the history of Freemasonry in America has been the myopic focus on a handful of individuals, in particular the Founding Fathers, at the expense of less well-known but equally fascinating members of the fraternity. We also have had a tendency to view individuals and their lives in isolation, as opposed to their role as a part of a larger and far better narrative.
Such was the case with the below Article. The seeds of this story were planted in a curious newspaper editorial from November 26, 1737 in William Bradford’s New York Gazette. Many New York Masonic historians have pointed out this publication as being one of the earliest scraps of evidence as an acknowledgement that at the time of the printing there was at least one lodge operating in the city. While this has certainly been helpful to subsequent researchers, the lack of context around why that article appeared misses out on a much greater story involving another example of Franklin’s genius and ability to create an influential social network, as well as a rivalry that spanned generations and stretched from New York City to Philadelphia. It also adds new information to a several centuries old question about why America’s preeminent lawyer left Philadelphia in the prime of his career to travel to New York City to represent a financially destitute German immigrant printer who was, at the time, locked up in the city prison and facing a ‘slam dunk’ case against him.
One October morning in 1723, a seventeen-year-old Benjamin Franklin found himself in Perth Amboy, in the Province of New Jersey, with little money in his pockets and having not eaten or had any water to drink in the previous thirty hours. After a turbulent few days onboard a small boat in inclement wind and weather, he made preparations to walk the remaining seventy miles to his final destination of Philadelphia where he hoped to gain employment in the printing office of Andrew Bradford, the son of the New York printer William Bradford.
Franklin’s journey first began in Boston, where he departed his brother’s printing shop and heavy hand in an attempt to strike out on his own. Franklin already had considerable experience in working in a demanding printing shop; from soliciting advertisers, to securing the pulp needed to print papers and books, to selling stationery. By this time, the young polymath had even printed an amusing set of fourteen letters under the pen name of Mrs. Silence Dogood, which poked fun at colonial life in Boston and aroused interest from the readership of Franklin’s brother’s paper, The New-England Courant.
Three days after sailing from Boston, he arrived in New York City and immediately sought out the Hanover Square offices of William Bradford, the influential printer of The New-York Gazette. Bradford was born in Leicestershire, England into a likely Quaker household and apprenticed with Andrew Sowel, who at the time was the most noteworthy Quaker printer in London. Bradford married Sowel’s daughter, Elizabeth, in 1685 and shortly thereafter sailed for Philadelphia after Sowel had arranged for the couple to join the founder of the Province of Pennsylvania and fellow Quaker, William Penn. Bradford had originally established a printing business in Philadelphia where he became the first printer in the province before becoming the official printer for the Province of New York in 1693 and additionally served concurrently as the printer for the Province of New Jersey.
Upon reaching Bradford’s offices, Franklin learned the disappointing news that he was unable to provide him with any work. He did offer to make an introduction to his thirty-seven year old son, Andrew, when he told Franklin, “My son at Philadelphia has lately lost his principal hand, Aquilla Rose, by death; if you go thither, I believe he may employ you.” Andrew was the printer of The American Weekly Mercury who had learned the printing business from his father in New York and had moved to Philadelphia in 1712. According to Franklin’s own words, Andrew Bradford was mostly illiterate and ran the printing office in a laissez faire way in which he was, “not very anxious about the business.” Despite his questionable business acumen, Bradford was considered one of the finest citizens of Philadelphia and held in high respect for his character and integrity. He knew how to obtain and keep business, having secured lucrative contracts with the influential Quaker community of the city, as well as holding the government printing contract through the Pennsylvania Colonial Assembly. Perhaps most importantly, he was the postmaster of Philadelphia where he controlled distribution of his newspaper and magazine to other cities along the Eastern seaboard; especially to New York.
Taking William Bradford up on his offer, Franklin agreed to sail for Philadelphia, which is how he ended up walking from Perth Amboy to that city. After his arrival where he spent a night sleeping in a Quaker meeting house, Franklin made his way to the Quaker schoolhouse on Second Street that served as the printing shop of Andrew Bradford. Likely much to Franklin’s surprise, when he walked in to introduce himself, William Bradford of New York happened to be standing there meeting with his son. Bradford had traveled on horse not long after Franklin left and had avoided the misfortunes that befell the young apprentice on his way to the city. William took the opportunity to formally introduce Franklin to his son and described the circumstances that led him to Philadelphia. Andrew Bradford provided him with breakfast and received him civilly, however, he told him that “he did not at present want a hand, being lately suppli'd with one; but there was another printer in town, lately set up, one Keimer, who, perhaps, might employ me; if not, I should be welcome to lodge at his house, and he would give me a little work to do now and then till fuller business should offer.”
William Bradford escorted Franklin a few blocks from his son’s printing shop to that of Samuel Keimer, originally from the Southwark neighborhood of London, who was the only other printer in the city aside from Andrew Bradford. Keimer gave Franklin his first paying job, however, Franklin remained unimpressed at Keimer’s outdated equipment and described him as suspicious and jealous. The fact that Franklin lodged at his chief rival’s home (Bradford), led Keimer to seek out alternative lodging for his young employee where he rented a room at the house of Deborah Read, who several years later would become the common law wife of Franklin.
Franklin went on to work in several printing shops in the Philadelphia area around this time before setting sail for London in 1724 on the advice of Pennsylvania Governor Sir William Keith, who had encouraged him to establish his own printing business in the city and assured him that he would receive government contracts upon his return. Franklin traveled to London for the purposes of obtaining the necessary printing equipment for the business, writing, “The governor, seeming to like my company, had me frequently to his house, and his setting me up was always mention'd as a fixed thing. I was to take with me letters recommendatory to a number of his friends besides the letter of credit to furnish me the necessary money to purchase the press and types paper, etc.” Before arriving in London, Franklin’s ship stopped at Newcastle, located south of Philadelphia along the Delaware River. The ship docked to let the noted lawyer Andrew Hamilton and his son, James Hamilton, off the ship to enable their return to Philadelphia after Andrew had received notice of a large fee to be received by him if he would represent a merchant in releasing a seized ship. This chance meeting by Franklin and the Hamilton’s would pay dividends later in Franklin’s life; although Hamilton’s departure from the ship gave Franklin the more immediate opportunity of upgrading his quarters onboard.
Unfortunately for Franklin, upon his arrival in London he realized that Governor Keith’s promises were empty; his guarantee of letters of credit which would enable Franklin to choose his own printing equipment never made their way to the ship. Franklin had befriended a merchant named Thomas Denham on his journey across the Atlantic Ocean. Seeking Denham’s advice about the situation, the merchant explained to Franklin that in all likelihood Keith never wrote letters of credit on his behalf and that he was frequently known for making promises he could not keep. With little money to spare and his situation looking bleak, Franklin sought out opportunities in London to improve himself to his advantage in the printing business.
One letter that did arrive on the ship transporting Franklin and Denham to London, which had had been placed in the care of the ship’s captain by Governor Keith, was from a Philadelphia attorney named William Riddlesden, whom Franklin knew from reputation and experience to be a dishonest and unscrupulous man. Through sheer chance, the letter ended up in Franklin’s hand when the London stationer to whom it was supposed to be delivered refused to accept it as he returned it to Franklin and declared that, “O! this is from Riddlesden. I have lately found him to be a complete rascal, and I will have nothing to do with him, nor receive any letters from him.” The contents of the letter revealed a plot by Governor Keith and Riddlesden to disparage Andrew Hamilton. Hamilton and Keith had previously come into conflict over the legal struggle for control of Pennsylvania upon the death of William Penn, with Keith taking the side of Penn’s son, William, Jr. and Hamilton that of Penn’s widow, Hannah. To enact revenge upon Keith for taking advantage of him, Franklin personally delivered the letter to Andrew Hamilton when he later arrived in England.
Over the course of the next two years, Franklin enjoyed himself immensely in London society, as well as prospered financially; so much so that he was able to lend money to fellow workers at interest. Despite the many charms and distractions of eighteenth century London, Franklin saw fit to return to Philadelphia in July, 1726 and set sail back across the Atlantic towards the largest city in British America. Much like his previous journey to the city three years earlier, the ship encountered poor weather and several delays. Upon reaching Philadelphia, the grateful Franklin exclaimed it was “the most joyful day I ever knew.”
After spending a year working in a merchant’s house with Thomas Denham, who had accompanied him back from London, Franklin returned to his former line of business in printing with a determination to succeed that would put him on a collision course with Andrew Bradford.
At the time, the two leading publishers in the city continued to be Bradford and his old employer Samuel Keimer. Both produced subpar papers, although Bradford maintained important relationships in several cities where his paper was sold and distributed, including having the name of his father, William, in New York City on the imprint. Franklin rejoined Keimer’s business to oversee the printing shop so that Keimer could focus on improving the stationary business, however, their relationship soon deteriorated and Franklin made plans to strike out on his own. Before he did, however, Keimer secured Franklin’s help in printing paper currency for the province and sent him to Burlington. The Burlington job brought Franklin into the orbit of many notable citizens of Philadelphia who happened to be there, including the merchant and judge, William Allen. Allen, who would go on to be Mayor of Philadelphia, would also become the son-in-law of Andrew Hamilton when he married Hamilton’s daughter, Margaret.
By 1728, Franklin had his new printing operation up and running and the following year bought out Keimer’s The Pennsylvania Gazette and began publishing under that nameplate. His strategy was to systematically weaken his only competitor, Bradford, whose paper he referred to as “a paltry thing, wretchedly manag'd, no way entertaining, and yet was profitable to him.” Franklin’s paper quickly gained readership and subscribers and, in 1730, he beat out Bradford to become the official printer of the Pennsylvania government, a lucrative job. Bradford’s loss of the contract was mostly related to his blundering transcription of a communication between the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly and the governor, although Andrew Hamilton, a member of that body, gave a strong advancement of Franklin as being qualified for the job as official printer which likely helped him secure the position.
It was around this time that Franklin began to republish in the Gazette clippings of Masonic notices that had originally been printed in London papers that had made their way to Philadelphia. Franklin would have certainly been aware of Freemasonry from his time in London, however, at that time he was too young to be initiated, lacked a social standing and was somewhat unknown to those members of the community who would have likely composed the membership of a Masonic lodge. The mystique of a lodge, the social connections formed within and the emphasis on learning in the form of liberal arts and sciences would have certainly appealed to the curious Franklin. Despite publishing an opinion in his paper in December, 1730 which made jest of Freemasonry, Franklin had also formed the so called Leather Apron Club, which was modeled closely on the attributes and characteristics of a Masonic lodge, and which eventually evolved from a mutual improvement society into The Junto; a literary society.
The social connections that Franklin had been cultivating in Philadelphia over the previous seven years, along with a general awareness of his intellectual prowess among that city’s elite, led to his initiation and advancement in the St. John’s Lodge, a Masonic lodge which met at the Tun Tavern, then located about six city blocks from Franklin’s home and print shop. The several Masonic lodges in the city were under the guidance of their provincial grand master; none other than William Allen, the influential merchant with whom Franklin first became acquainted in Burlington. Franklin evidently took great interest in the fraternity, as he was quickly made responsible for drafting bye laws for the Lodge and in 1732 was elected as the Junior Warden of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, news of which was published in his Gazette.
Franklin’s newspaper circulation continued to grow and to which he added the noted Poor Richard’s Almanack, a periodical that provided weather forecasts, household hints and general advice to his readership which was published annually from 1732 to 1758. Franklin’s Masonic reputation and work ethic also continued to grow, with Franklin succeeding William Allen as Provincial Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in June, 1734. Notably, James Hamilton, the son of Andrew Hamilton who Franklin first met onboard his initial trip to London, was selected in the same election to serve as a grand warden of that body.
Around the same time and roughly ninety miles to the northeast, a conflict was brewing in the city of New York over the publication of a newspaper entitled the New-York Weekly Journal; a rival paper to William Bradford’s New-York Gazette.
William Crosby, who had been appointed by King George II as the Governor of the Province of New York, arrived from England in 1733. Shortly after officially taking office, Governor Crosby found himself embroiled in a legal dispute with the President of the Province’s Council, Rip Van Dam. Van Dam was represented by William Smith, Sr. and James Alexander, both of whom were arguably two of the best jurists in the city at the time. Governor Crosby used his influence to change the court of jurisdiction over the dispute with Van Dam to ensure that he would secure a victory. Crosby did achieve a satisfactory verdict, although the general public was outraged and the Chief Justice, Lewis Morris, wrote a dissenting opinion asserting that Crosby’s action of a change of court, simply because the justices were likely to be more favorable, was unlawful. Justice Morris then took the additional step of preparing his written opinion for publication and distribution to the citizens of New York in which he criticized Crosby for his attempts at intimidating the judges into returning a verdict that would be favorable only to Crosby. This incensed Governor Crosby into removing Morris, who had been the chief judge for almost twenty years, from office. This action enraged the citizens and prompted Van Dam’s lawyers, Smith and Alexander, into setting up a rival paper to the Gazette. Bradford’s paper was seen as being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Crosby administration and only published articles and editorials that were supportive of him. On the face of it, this made sense for William Bradford. Being the official printer to the government was lucrative, as it helped alleviate the ups and downs from advertising revenue alone in different seasons, and allowed him to interact with influential members of New York society.
While Alexander and Smith, along with Morris, would serve as the principal author and editors of the New-York Weekly Journal, they required the services of a well-trained printer to generate the actual print publication. For this responsibility, they sought out the help of a German born printer, John Peter Zenger. Zenger, who had previously been bound as an indentured servant in the print shop of William Bradford for eight years beginning in 1710, immediately began publishing articles critical of the actions of Governor Crosby. Crosby’s administration claimed that Zenger was enabling seditious libel, which at the time under English law was a criminal offense to publish or otherwise make statements intended to criticize or provoke dissatisfaction with the government, regardless of whether the statements were grounded in truth. The logic for Crosby was simple; if he removed Zenger, one of the few talented printers in the province, the paper would cease to exist.
Despite the failure of two grand juries to bring charges against Zenger under seditious libel, Governor Crosby proceeded against Zenger in 1735 with an information, which at the time was an unpopular legal maneuver that allowed him to charge Zenger without the use of a grand jury. As this was happening, Crosby’s two allies on the Supreme Court had Zenger arrested on a bench warrant at which point the printer was sent to the city jail. Zenger’s colleagues and lawyers, Alexander and Smith, sought a writ of habeas corpus to have him freed, but Crosby’s allies set a bail amount of £400, which was an extraordinary amount of money at the time.
At Zenger’s arraignment his two attorneys challenged the validity of the judges on the Supreme Court, as they were appointed by Governor Crosby who had also recently removed Justice Morris. This challenge to their authority was not well received and the judges proceeded to issue an order striking James Alexander and William Smith as being attorneys authorized to practice before the Supreme Court and effectively barred them from representing Zenger. Worse, Crosby’s ally and Recorder of New York, Francis Harison, arrived with a list of potential jurors hand picked by Crosby; an act so outrageous that even the Crosby appointed judges refused to entertain it.
This left Zenger in a precarious situation. He remained in prison, he needed legal representation and two of the best lawyers in New York City, who also happened to be sympathetic to his cause and his financial partners, were now omitted from the few options he had left at his disposal. Governor Crosby, the Supreme Court, the jurors and the citizens of New York must have been aghast when, on August 4th, a sixty-year old Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, likely the most eloquent and sought after attorney in British North America, walked through the doors and into the first floor of City Hall on Wall Street. Hamilton, whose son James Hamilton was by now the sitting Provincial Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, having taken the reigns from Benjamin Franklin, was now poised to represent John Peter Zenger as his attorney in the larger fight over the principle of freedom of the press and against Crosby and his allies, including William Bradford.
The trial opened with the Attorney General accusing Zenger of “being a seditious person and a frequent printer and publisher of false news and seditious” who had “wickedly and maliciously” devised ways of disparaging Governor Crosby and his administration. Shockingly, Andrew Hamilton rose from his seat and said that he would not contest Zenger’s printing of the alleged material published in the New-York Weekly Journal and instead would let the merits of the case rest upon the fact that what Zenger said was factually accurate. He challenged the assertion that the libel laws of England were transportable to the Province of New York where the charge of seditious libel was actually made worse if the accusation was true. He argued that the charge of libel should not be interpreted to prohibit the complaints of citizens who “suffer under a bad administration.”
The chief justice overseeing the trial instructed the jurors to not accept Hamilton’s assertion that he could provide proof that what Zenger printed, on behalf of what Alexander and Smith wrote, was factually and truthfully accurate. Hamilton then went on a lengthy and eloquent defense in his summation to the jury that the citizenry “have a right publicly to remonstrate against the abuses of power in the strongest terms, to put their neighbors upon their guard against the craft or open violence of men in authority, and to assert with courage the sense they have of the blessings of liberty, the value they put upon it, and their resolution at all hazards to preserve it as one of the greatest blessings heaven can bestow.” He argued that the case before them was about power, liberty, the right to criticize and protest, and that the consequences of their decision may “affect every free man that lives under a British government on the main of America.”
After a ten minute deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. As soon as the foreman announced the jury’s decision, Captain Matthew Norris, who would go on to be Master of the first Masonic lodge in New York City and who was the son-in-law of the removed Justice Lewis Morris, was warned by the chief justice that he could be removed or arrested after Norris jumped on his chair in the courtroom and rallied others in the audience to cheer the decision. Before departing the city for Philadelphia, a dinner was held in Andrew Hamilton’s honor at the Black Horse Tavern, on the corner of William Street and Garden Street (now known as Exchange Place), which also happened to be the meeting place of the very first lodge in the city; The Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons. The following day, on the start of his trip back, Hamilton received a grand salute of cannons in his honor.
Back in Philadelphia, Andrew Hamilton resumed his place as one of the most brilliant legal minds in the city, as well as his public occupation as Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly for the seventh time. In October, 1736, sitting within the walls of the Pennsylvania State House (now known as Independence Hall), a building that he helped design and on land that he had deeded to William Allen, Hamilton appointed Benjamin Franklin as Clerk to the Assembly. While Franklin was just beginning his career in public service, he would again resume his rivalry with Andrew Bradford, this time over an unfortunate incident that claimed the life of a Philadelphia citizen and cast a harsh light on Freemasonry.
At some point in early June, 1737, Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette was the first to publish a disturbing report of the death of Daniel Reese, an apprentice to a Philadelphia apothecary located on Market Street and Letitia Court. Reese had heard of the Freemasons and had expressed an interest to his employer, Dr. Evan Jones, of being able to join the fraternity. The major obstacle to this request was that Dr. Jones, nor the other two men who showed up on the night of Reese’s pretend initiations, were Freemasons. They took Reese to the cellar of a building, made him take a ridiculous oath, subjected him to a number of indignities, and threw burning liquor on him in an attempt to scare him. The conflagration was so severe that Reese died a few days later on June 16th.
As a follow up to this reporting, the officers of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, along with the members of St. John’s Lodge, published in Franklin’s newspaper an open letter which declared their abhorrence to the events that took the life of Daniel Reese, as well as proclaiming their innocence in the situation. While Franklin continued reporting on Masonic events that took place in the city, England and the West Indies, a grand jury in Philadelphia indicted Dr. Jones and his conspirators in the murder of Daniel Reese. A trial began and concluded in late January, 1738, with Jones being found guilty and sentenced to being branded in the hand, although one of the defendants was acquitted.
Franklin reported on aspects of the case to his readership, however, this opened him up to attacks by Bradford in his American Weekly Mercury in what could be described as the first anti-Masonic series of articles in a newspaper in colonial America. Bradford, who was present at the trial, described in great detail the events that claimed the life of Reese as presented by the attorney general and additionally stated to his readership that he was not a member of the real Freemasons of the city. Additionally, it was explicitly stated that in the opinion of one of the subscribers to Bradford’s paper that Dr. Jones had been a member of the real Freemasons who had been expelled for his egregious conduct and had formed a clandestine lodge in the city. Lastly, the opinion writer claimed that Benjamin Franklin was “in” on the events that would take place and when the planned mock initiation was described to him four days in advance, he “was pleased to express his Approbation thereof by a most hearty Laughter.”
Franklin responded in his Gazette a few days later that Bradford’s paper was publishing very false and scandalous aspersions about him before proceeding to describe at length the situation in which Dr. Jones explained to him what was going to transpire, with Franklin telling the pharmacist “That when the Young Man (Reese) came to know how he had been impos’d on, he would never forgive them.” Further, Franklin had two witnesses to the event describe how Franklin discouraged such behavior, signing and attesting their names to Franklin’s response to Bradford.
Bradford continued his attacks on Franklin and Freemasonry in the subsequent months. The controversy grew so heated that word of the events reached Franklin’s parents who were both still living in Boston, Massachusetts. Writing to his mother, Franklin told her that Freemasons were “in general a very harmless sort of People; and have no principles or Practices that are inconsistent with Religion or good manners,” which seemed to satisfy her concerns.
Franklin published two news updates about Freemasonry in his February 15 to 21, 1738 edition of the Gazette. The first update concerned the details of a Masonic celebration that took place in Charleston, South Carolina. The second was in relation to the Masonic lodge at New York City. With Andrew Bradford and Franklin’s public attacks concerning Freemasonry temporarily abating, the battleground shifted to New York, pitting Andrew’s father, William, against his old apprentice, John Peter Zenger.
At this time, the first lodge of New York City was already at work and apparently generating some attention. On November 26, 1737, William Bradford’s New York Gazette printed a Letter to the Editor as follows:
“Mr. Bradford: There being a new and unusual sect of Society of Persons of late appeared in our native Country, and from thence spread into some other Kingdoms and Commonwealths, and at last has extended to these parts of America, their Principle, Practices and Designs not being known, not by them published to the World, has been the reason that in Holland, France, Italy and other Places they have been supprest. All other societies that have appeared in the World have published their Principles and Practices, and when they meet set open their Meeting-house Doors, for all that will come in and see and hear them, but this Society called FREE MASONS, meet with their Doors shut, and a Guard at the outside to prevent any approach near to hear or see what they are doing. And as they do not publish their Principles or Practices so they oblige all their proselytes to keep them secret as may appear by the severe oath they are obliged to take at their first admittance...”
The printing of an anti-Masonic perspective in Bradford’s New-York Gazette seems to have been more of a rebuttal to John Peter Zenger’s New-York Weekly Journal advertisement from a few days before concerning the help requested by Robert Todd in returning the silver square, level and plumb-rule which belonged to the Lodge that had been stolen out of his tavern. Zenger and Bradford’s rivalry as publishers had only intensified after Zenger’s acquittal in 1735, although Bradford’s publication was likely done more in the spirit of providing new, readable content than an interest in alarming the public of the formation of a secret and subversive group. Two days later, on November 28th, in what seems to be a further attempt to antagonize Zenger, Bradford printed the obligation of an Entered Apprentice in his newspaper.
Zenger’s paper almost exclusively published favorable articles and updates concerning the happenings of the lodge and its membership. Bradford continued his attacks, often lighthearted, on the fraternity. On June 26, 1738, Bradford’s Gazette published “A Song for the Free Masons,” followed by “A Parody of the Same Verses for the Ladies” with a humorous tone, likely done as a response to a public display by the fraternity from two days earlier in their annual commemoration of St. John the Baptist feast day.
At some point shortly thereafter the attacks stopped. The lodge in New York agreed to begin placing advertisements in Bradford’s paper, with the first occurrence taking place in the September 27, 1738 edition of the Gazette. From that time forward, Bradford discontinued any further printed derogatory comments towards Freemasonry or its members. The sphere of influence over readership and advertising likely became too great for both father and son.
Andrew Bradford eventually lost his coveted position as postmaster in Philadelphia to Benjamin Franklin and died on November 23, 1742. His father, William, died in New York a decade later in May, 1752. William’s grandson, Cornelius Bradford, would go on to own and operate the Merchant’s Coffee House in New York, where he became an ardent patriot and a member of St. John’s Lodge No. 2 of that city, having first been initiated in Lodge No. 2 of Philadelphia in June, 1757; a lodge that had ironically been warranted by Benjamin Franklin as Provincial Grand Master in 1749. Franklin would continue his newspaper business for many years and, as he grew older, would eventually begin to take stakes in printing operations in American cities. The printers who ran these businesses were often members of the fraternity. Franklin passed away in 1790, many years after his differences with the Bradford family had abated. William Bradford of Philadelphia, the grandson of William Bradford of New York, would go on to be the official printer for the first Continental Congress and his son, also named William, was a member of Lodge No. 2 of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania and the second United States Attorney General in 1794-1795.
Even Francis Harison, who had tried to stack the deck of jurors in favor of Governor Crosby, seemed to have had a change of heart. His son, George, would go on to become the powerful Provincial Grand Master of New York in 1753. The Zenger trial has had a lasting impact on both the legal profession and the press. While the outcome of the trial did not necessarily produce any new laws, it did signal to Americans that heavy handed prosecution would not be acceptable to the citizenry, as well as blossoming the idea of the freedom of press in the provinces. Many years later, the trial would influence protections embodied in the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and in the Sedition Act of 1798. It also helped plant the seed for the idea of an independent judiciary as a check on legislative and executive privilege.
WORKS CITED
“Crown v. John Peter Zenger, 1735.” Historical Society of the New York Courts. October 14, 2021. Accessed November 26, 2021. https://history.nycourts.gov/case/crown-v-zenger/
De Lancey, Edward F. “Chief Justice William Allen.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 1, no. 2 (1877): 202–11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20084281.
Ferree, Walter L. “Andrew Bradford: A Pioneer Printer of Pennsylvania.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 21, no.3, (July 1954).
Lewis, Walker. “Andrew Hamilton and the He-Monster.” The William and Mary Quarterly 38, no. 2 (1981): 268–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1918779.
Pine, Frank Woodworth. Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. New York: Henry Holt and Company, June, 1922.
Sachse, Julius Friedrich. Benjamin Franklin as a Freemason. Lancaster: The New Era Printing Company, 1906.
Sachse, Julius F. “The Masonic Chronology of Benjamin Franklin.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 30, no. 2 (1906): 238–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20085334.
Steiner, Bernard C. “Andrew Hamilton and John Peter Zenger.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 20, no. 3 (1896): 405–8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20085705.
Willard, J., William Tailer, John Clark, and Anna Janney de Armond. “Andrew Bradford.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 62, no. 4 (1938): 463–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20087144.
