The Trial of Matthew Lyons
Actions Before the Trial
Matthew Lyon, a Republican Congressman from Vermont, was an outspoken critic of government actions prior to his trial, which set him up to be an influence in the fight against the Sedition act. As a member of Congress, he spoke and voted against the Sedition act. Lyon published a response to swirling rumors about the Sedition Act before it was passed, saying he would oppose it, “as it will tend to prevent due investigation…” of government officials.1 As a government official himself, he believed in government accountability and that the First Amendment encouraged that. After the passing of the Sedition Act despite his efforts, he participated in free speech against the government himself, which led to his indictment. He sent a letter to the publisher of Spooner’s Vermont Journal, defending why he opposes the Adams administration, stating Adams had an “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp… and selfish avarice”.2 This letter was used in his indictment, under charges of seditious libel against the President. As a clear advocate of government accountability, he was likely being genuine in his criticism, and was striving towards a better American government. This context prepares him for defense from his constituents during and after the trial, as he has a code of honor and doesn’t waver on it.
Lyon's Defense
Matthew Lyons' own defense against his charges utilized the contradictions in the Sedition act to the First Amendment, and in doing so highlights the injustices of the trial. In his defense, Lyon attacks the Sedition act itself, and its viability in the American law environment. Lyon states that the law is “unconstitutional and void”, and thus he should not be prosecuted under the law.3 This defense was stricken from the court record, as the Judge believed that the court had no jurisdiction to determine its constitutionality. 4 However, Lyon continued to argue that in fact the court had no jurisdiction to try this case at all due to its unconstitutionality. 5 In his argument, he puts the First Amendment and the Sedition act in direct opposition, saying that the two cannot coexist. Thus he is using the protections given by the Constitution in his argument, highlighting the incoherent nature of the charges. In arguing its unconstitutionality, he attacks the foundation of the law and makes clear that he should not have to defend himself against the Sedition act because it should not exist in the first place. This highlighting of injustice is a powerful statement that would go on to make the case against the Sedition act stronger.
Imprisonment and Aftermath
Lyons' writings during his imprisonment made him a martyr, and led to political action from his constituents. Following Lyons’ imprisonment, his writings continued to frame the argument on the unconstitutional nature of the Sedition act. Lyon's newspaper, the Scourge of Aristocracy, continued its publication after Lyon was found guilty and sentenced to several months in prison. The Scourge of Aristocracy continuously condemned the Sedition act, calling it a “direct violation of the Constitution”.6 Similar to how he conducted his defense in his trial, Lyon puts the Sedition Act and the Constitution at war with each other. Lyon believes that the First Amendment allows for true freedom of speech, and should permit political discourse and accountability, and to restrict that ability is against American freedoms. The trial and Lyons' imprisonment and his writings inspired the people of Vermont, and he was reelected whilst serving his prison time. There was also a massive petition campaign, fighting his fine.7 He became a martyr of free speech, and the people of Vermont rallied around him. It is clear the impact of the First Amendment’s protections on Lyon and Americans during this period.
1 ] Matthew Lyon, “Twelve Reasons Against A Free People’s Employing Practitioners in the Law, as Legislators,” Farmers Library, 19 Aug. 1794, “For Spooner's Vermont Journal,” Spooner's Vermont Journal, 31 July 1798, quoted in Bird Criminal Dissent: Prosecutions Under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798”, 98
2 Vermont Circuit Court, Lyon's Case: Seditious Libel, 1
3 Lyon's Case: Seditious Libel, 3
4 Bird, “ Criminal Dissent: Prosecutions Under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798”, 93
5 Ibid.
6 Matthew Lyon, “The Following Are the Names,” Scourge of Aristocracy, 15 Oct, 1798, 94; “col. Lyon’s dialogue,” Scourge of Aristocracy, 1 Nov 1798, 118, 123; as quoted in Bird Criminal Dissent: Prosecutions Under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798”, 99
7 Bird, “ Criminal Dissent: Prosecutions Under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798”, 96