questions of law as well as of fact involved in
the case. To maintain that the defendant has the right to address
the jury upon matters which the jury have no right to determine,
and yet that the jury possess the power--the ultimate and final
power--to decide matters of law, and are nevertheless under moral
obligation never to exercise the power, are palpable
inconsistencies.

The Supreme Court of Vermont in State _vs._ Croteau, 23 Ver., 14,
in a very able opinion, review these two cases and other
subsequent decisions which follow their doctrine, and, after an
able and critical examination of all the English and American
cases, repudiate this new doctrine, and declare that in criminal
prosecutions it is the ancient, common-law right of the jury in
favor of the prisoner to determine the whole matter in issue--the
law as well as the fact.

There are some American cases holding a contrary doctrine, but
the current of American as well as of English authorities is
overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that juries in
criminal causes are judges of the law as well as of the
facts.[176]

In late years there has been considerable discussion, and some
contrariety of judicial opinion, in regard to the moral right of
juries to find a general verdict of not guilty against the
instructions of the court on matters of law. This subject,
however, need not be further discussed, because it is believed
that no reported case can be found denying to juries the power of
determining the law as well as the fact in all criminal cases.
The utmost extent to which any case goes is, that the jury, in
deciding upon the law, are morally bound to adopt the opinion
expressed by the court; but every case admits their power to do
otherwise if they see fit. But admitting the existence of the
distinction between the legal power and the moral right of
juries, still the decision of the court on the trial of Miss
Anthony was erroneous, because the court did not instruct the
jury in regard to the law, and then leave the jury to perform
their duty in the premises. On the contrary, the court took the
case from the jury altogether and directed their verdict; thus
denying to the jury not only the moral right, but even the power
of rendering a verdict of not guilty; and r