Added author's note

Makefile

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-chapters := 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 appendix
+chapters := note 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 appendix
 edited_chapters := $(foreach chapter,$(chapters),edited/$(chapter).markdown)
 
 book.pdf: $(edited_chapters) title.txt Makefile

edited/note.markdown

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+\chapter*{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, both civil and criminal, in which
+juries sit. The same volume will probably also discuss several political
+and legal questions, which will naturally assume importance if the trial
+by jury should be reëstablished.

original/note.markdown

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+\chapter*{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, both civil and criminal, in which
+juries sit. The same volume will probably also discuss several political
+and legal questions, which will naturally assume importance if the trial
+by jury should be reëstablished.