11 May 1808

I. Reasons

Ch.V.

§.4.

If terms of antique and scientific structure, such as felony, corruption of blood - praemunire or │ │ were alone in question there might be more/some[?]/ reason for reserving the cognizance and interpretation of them to learned lips.

But forasmuch as every word in a statute may with indisputable propriety be termed a word of law, and a question - concerning the import of that word a question of law, and forasmuch as among the words in statutes words of the most common use possible are every where to be found, and any question recognized as a question of law is considered as a question reserved for the cognizance of learned minds, have by implication it is assumed, that there is not a word in the language concerning the import of which a Jury ought to be considered as competent to pronounce.

Confronting this notion with another, hence arises a strange and disastrous inconsistency.

Laws are enacted every day, which on pain of death, every man, those of the lowest and most uninstructed classes not excepted, is called upon and supposed to understand, on pain of death: lay these same words before a select assembly composed of men who are not, or at any rate need not be and ought not to be, taken from the uninformed classes, those select men, selected to be made Judges over others, are not to be suffered to hold themselves competent to understand it. (a)