ntention or guilty knowledge, wholly from the
jury, and ordered a verdict to be entered up upon his own
decision, without allowing the question either to be argued or
submitted to the jury, or the jury to pass upon it.

There certainly can be no graver question affecting the rights of
citizens than this. The whole theory of trial by jury at common
law consists in the fundamental maxim that before any conviction
can be had for a crime it must be passed upon by twelve good and
lawful men, the peers of the accused; and the very oath
prescribed to jurors by the common law most distinctly guaranteed
this right to the accused: "You shall well and truly try and true
deliverance make, between the King and the prisoner at the bar,
according to your evidence;" while at the common law the oath
prescribed in civil cases gave a right to a judge to direct the
jury in the matter of law, and to direct the verdict one way or
the other, as he saw fit, the oath being substantially as
follows: "You shall well and truly try the issue between party
and party according to the law and the evidence given you."

Whatever changes may have been made in the practice of the States
since the time of the earlier amendments to the Constitution,
certain it is that at that time, after a jury had been impaneled,
there was no way that the accused could be put in jeopardy of
life or limb without his cause being submitted to twelve men, and
their unanimous verdict passing upon the fact of his guilt or
innocence. And this right your committee deem is not one lightly
to be sacrificed. Burke once said that the whole English
Constitution and machinery of government--not quoting words--were
only to put into a jury-box twelve honest men. What advantage
could it be to an accused to put twelve honest men into the
jury-box, if the judge, without asking for their opinion, or
without their intervention, can order a verdict of guilty to be
entered up against the accused?

Nothing, therefore, can be of more consequence to the citizen in
troublous times to protect him against the exercise of usurped or
other power for oppression, than the intervention of the judgment
of his peers upon the question whether he has been guilty of a
crime, or alleged offense against the Government. And in the