In the period between 1733, when Wm. Parks established his press at Williamsburg, and 1765 when Wm. Rind began to issue a paper at Williamsburg, there was but the single press in Virginia, and being the organ of the government it may be easily imagined that it had no great temptation to struggle for the liberty of the press.
With the exception of libel suits against Wm. Parks about the year 1740 (by which the House of Burgesses sought to punish him for publishing an article reflecting on one of the members), and the presentment in 1766 of Rind, and of Purdie and Dixon, the publishers of the two Virginia Gazettes (for referring in a way considered improper, to the bailment of Colonel Chiswell), in both of which instances the prosecution failed utterly in its attempt,—there is nothing on the subject which claims our attention.
In South Carolina the press was encouraged, liberal inducements being held out to any printer who would settle in the colony. As a result of this policy we find the printing press in operation from the year 1730, a newspaper being published in 1731. In the early period of the history of the press in the colony the only cause of serious trouble that we find was one involving Peter Timothy, of the Gazette, who had published a letter by one Hugh Bryan in which occurred the statement that “the clergy of South Carolina broke their Canons daily.” With Timothy were also arrested Bryan and George Whitefield, the Evangelist, who had corrected the manuscript. All three were admitted to bail, and the matter was dropped.
In 1773 one of the most important cases that ever occurred in the colonies came about through the publication in the South Carolina Gazette, then owned by Timothy and a partner whom he had lately taken, named Thomas Powell, but managed entirely by the latter, of a portion of the proceedings of the Council on the previous day. Being summoned to attend the body, he admitted that he was the publisher of the Gazette, and that he had printed the proceedings, which on being asked he said had been brought to him by the Hon. Wm. Henry Drayton, a member of the Council. The Council then adjudged him “guilty of a high breach of the privileges, and a contempt of the house.”
Powell refused to ask pardon of the Council which then,
“Resolved, That Thomas Powell, who hath this day been adjudged by this house, to have been guilty of a high breach of privilege, and a contempt of this house, be for his said offense committed to the Common Gaol of Charleston; and that his Honor, the President of this house, do issue his warrant accordingly.”
Mr. Drayton, who was present, and had acknowledged his share in the affair, protested strongly, but without avail, and Powell was placed in prison. Two days later, on Sept. 2d, the Hon. Rawlins Lowndes, and Mr. George Gabriel Powell, the former being Speaker of the Assembly, and the latter one of the members of the body, and both being justices of the peace, had Powell brought before them on a writ of Habeas Corpus and discharged him. The Council then took action in these resolutions:
“Resolved, That the power of commitment is so necessarily incident to each house of Assembly, that without it neither their authority nor dignity can in any degree whatsoever be maintained or supported.
Resolved, That Rawlins Lowndes, Esqr., Speaker of the Commons House of Assembly, and George Gabriel Powell, Esqr. member of the said house, being two justices of the peace, unus quorum, lately assistant judges and justices of his majesty’s court of Common Pleas, have, by virtue of habeas corpus by them issued, caused the body of T. Powell to be brought before them, on the second of this instant September, and the said justices, disregarding the commitment of this house, did presumptuously discharge T. Powell out of the custody of the sheriff under the commitment of this house.
Resolved, That the said justices have been guilty of the most atrocious contempt of this house.”