clude from it the citizens of the United States, the Federal faction in congress bellowed out for war, and the Federal papers echoed the cry. The faction, both in and out of Congress, declared New-Orleans to be of such vast importance, that without it the western states would be ruined. But mark the change! No sooner was the cession of New-Orleans and the territory of Louisiana obtained by peaceable negotiation, and for many times less expense than a war, with all its uncertainties of success, would have cost, than this self-same faction gave itself the lie, and represented the place as of no value. According to them, it was worth fighting for at a great expense, but not worth having quietly at a comparatively small expense. It has been said of a thief, that he had rather steal a purse than find one, and the conduct of the Federalists on this occasion corresponds with that saying. But all these inconsistencies become understood, when we recollect that the leaders of the Federal faction are an English faction, and that they follow, like a satellite, the variations of their principal. Their continual aim has been and still is, to involve the United States in a war with France and Spain. This is an English scheme, and the papers of the faction give every provocation that words can give, to provoke. France to hostilities. The bugbear held up by them is, that Buonaparte will attack Louisiana. This is an invention of the British emissary, Cullen, alias Carpenter, and the association of the Federalists, at least some of them, with this miserable emissary, involves their own characters in suspicion.

The Republicans, as before said, are open, bold, and candid in declaring their principles. They are no skulkers. Let, then, the Federalists declare theirs.

Oct. 17, 1806.

COMMON SENSE.

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

The Author of the following paper never writes on principle, without communicating to the public something which, if not new, is told in a new way. The Liberty of the Press is a subject of the first importance. He would gratify me, and I have no doubt render an essential service to the community, by publishing at large his thoughts upon it.—Cheetham, of Oct. 20, 1806.

Of the term Liberty of the Press.

THE writer of this remembers a remark made to him by Mr. Jefferson concerning the English newspapers, which at that time, 1787, while Mr. Jefferson was minister at Paris, were most vulgarly abusive. The remark applies with equal force to the Federal papers of America. The remark was, that "the licentiousness of the press produces the same effect as the restraint of the press was intended to do. If the restraint, said he, was to prevent things being told, and the licentiousness of the press prevents things being believed when they are told." We have in this state an evidence of the truth of this remark. The number of Federal papers in the city and state of NewYork, are more than five to one to the number of Republican papers, yet the majority of the elections go always against the Federal papers, which is demonstrative evidence that the licentiousness of those papers are destitute of credit.

Whoever has made observations on the characters of nations will find it generally true, that the manners of a nation, or of a party, can be better ascertained from the character of its press than from any other public circumstance. If its press is licentious, its manners are not good. Nobody believes a common liar, or a common defamer.

Nothing is more common with printers, especially of newspapers, than the continual cry of the Liberty of the Press, as if because they are printers, they are to have more privileges than other people. As the term "Liberty of the Press" is adopted in this country without being understood, I will state the origin of it, and show what it means. The term comes from England, and the case was as follows:

Prior to what is in England called the revolution, which was in 1688, no work could be published in that country, without first obtaining the permission of an officer appointed by the government for inspecting works intended for publication. The same was the case in France, except that in France there were forty who were called censors, and in England there was but one, called Imprimateur.

At the revolution, the office of Imprimateur was abolished, and as works could then be published without first obtaining the permission of the government officer, the press was, in consequence of that abolition, said to be free, and it was from this circumstance that the term Liberty of the Press arose. The press, which is a tongue to the eye, was then put exactly in the case of the human tongue. A man does not ask liberty. before hand to say something he has a mind to say, but he be comes answerable afterwards for the atrocities he may utter. In like manner, if a man makes the press utter atrocious things, he becomes as answerable for them as if he had uttered them by word of mouth. Mr. Jefferson has said in his inaugural speech, that "error of opinion might be tolerated, when reason was left free to combat it." This is sound philosophy in cases of error. But there is a difference between error and licentiousness.

Some lawyers in defending their clients, for the generality of lawyers, like Swiss soldiers, will fight on either side, have often given their opinion of what they defined the liberty of the press to be. One said it was this, another said it was that, and so on, according to the case they were pleading. Now these men ought to have known that the term, liberty of the press, arose from a FACT, the abolition of the office of Imprimateur, and that opinion has nothing to do in the case. The term refers to the fact of printing free from prior restraint,

and not at all to the matter printed, whether good or bad. The public at large, or in case of prosecution, a jury of the country, will be judges of the matter.

Oct. 19, 1806.

VOL. II.

59

COMMON SENSE.

THE EMISSARY CULLEN, OTHERWISE

CARPENTER.

IN Cullen's emissary paper, clandestinely entitled "The People's Friend," of October, is a piece signed Hamilton, in which several notorious falsifications are made from a publication of mine, entitled Communication, in the (New-York) American Citizen, of October 11, and the falsifications thus made, are imposed upon the public as literal extracts from that communication.

On Saturday, October 18, I made a written copy of those falsifications, and desired a friend* of mine to call on Cullen, or Carpenter, or whatever his travelling name may be, and read the said falsifications to him, and also a note written by myself, in my own name, asking him if he was the writer of those falsifications, and of the piece signed Hamilton, from which I had copied them, or to declare who the writer of them

was.

The gentleman who undertook to see Carpenter upon this business, called at his (Carpenter's) printing-office the next day, but could get no intelligence of him. He then left word with the person in the office, that he would call again the next day, Monday, and that he had something to communicate to Mr. Carpenter. The gentleman called accordingly, but Carpenter was not to be found. He left the same message for the next day, Tuesday, and called the third time, but Carpenter was not to be found. He then inquired of the persons in the office, who appeared to belong to it, where Carpenter lived or lodged. They said they did not know, but they believed it was a good way off. They also told him he might leave his message with them; but as the gentleman's business was to see

Mr. Walter Morton.