Project Gutenberg's An Essay on the Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Title: An Essay on the Trial by Jury

Author: Lysander Spooner

Release Date: June 27, 2010 [EBook #32984]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN ESSAY ON THE TRIAL BY JURY ***

Produced by Susan Goble, Curtis Weyant, Graeme Mackreth
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net

AN ESSAY

ON THE

TRIAL BY JURY.

BY LYSANDER SPOONER.

BOSTON:
JOHN P. JEWETT AND COMPANY.
CLEVELAND, OHIO:
JEWETT, PROCTOR & WORTHINGTON.
1852.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by
LYSANDER SPOONER,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

NOTICE TO ENGLISH PUBLISHERS.

The author claims the copyright of this book in England, on Common Law
principles, without regard to acts of parliament; and if the main
principle of the book itself be true, viz., that no legislation, in
conflict with the Common Law, is of any validity, his claim is a legal
one. He forbids any one to reprint the book without his consent.

Stereotyped by
HOBART & ROBBINS;
New England Type and Stereotype Foundery,
BOSTON.

NOTE.

This volume, it is presumed by the author, gives what will generally be
considered satisfactory evidence,--though not all the evidence,--of what
the Common Law trial by jury really is. In a future volume, if it should
be called for, it is designed to corroborate the grounds taken in this;
give a concise view of the English constitution; show the
unconstitutional character of the existing government in England, and
the unconstitutional means by which the trial by jury has been broken
down in practice; prove that, neither in England nor the United States,
have legislatures ever been invested by the people with any authority to
impair the powers, change the oaths, or (with few exceptions) abridge
the jurisdiction, of juries, or select jurors on any other than Common
Law principles; and, consequently, that, in both countries, legislation
is still constitutionally subordinate to the discretion and consciences
of Common Law juries, in all cases,