Fix footnote bodies

edited/appendix.markdown

@@ -96,30 +96,30 @@ By what force, fraud, and conspiracy, on the part of kings, nobles, and
 England, it is designed to show more fully in the next volume, if it
 should be necessary.
 
-[Footnote 118: Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent,
-mutually sustain each other, and can be sustained only by each other,
-for these reasons: 1. Juries would refuse to enforce a tax against a man
-who had never agreed to pay it. They would also protect men in forcibly
-resisting the collection of taxes to which they had never consented.
-Otherwise the jurors would authorize the government to tax themselves
-without their consent,—a thing which no jury would be likely to do. In
-these two ways, then, trial by the country would sustain the principle
-of no taxation without consent. 2. On the other hand, the principle of
-no taxation without consent would sustain the trial by the country,
-because men in general would not consent to be taxed for the support of
-a government under which trial by the country was not secured. Thus
-these two principles mutually sustain each other.
-
-But, if either of these principles were broken down, the other would
-fall with it, and for these reasons: 1. If trial by the country were
-broken down, the principle of no taxation without consent would fall
-with it, because the government would then be _able_ to tax the people
-without their consent, inasmuch as the legal tribunals would be mere
-tools of the government, and would enforce such taxation, and punish men
-for resisting such taxation, as the government ordered. 2. On the other
-hand, if the principle of no taxation without consent were broken down,
-trial by the country would fall with it, because the government, if it
-could tax people without their consent, would, of course, take enough of
-their money to enable it to employ all the force necessary for
-sustaining its own tribunals, (in the place of juries,) and carrying
-their decrees into execution.]
+[^118]: Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent,
+    mutually sustain each other, and can be sustained only by each other,
+    for these reasons: 1. Juries would refuse to enforce a tax against a man
+    who had never agreed to pay it. They would also protect men in forcibly
+    resisting the collection of taxes to which they had never consented.
+    Otherwise the jurors would authorize the government to tax themselves
+    without their consent,—a thing which no jury would be likely to do. In
+    these two ways, then, trial by the country would sustain the principle
+    of no taxation without consent. 2. On the other hand, the principle of
+    no taxation without consent would sustain the trial by the country,
+    because men in general would not consent to be taxed for the support of
+    a government under which trial by the country was not secured. Thus
+    these two principles mutually sustain each other.
+    
+    But, if either of these principles were broken down, the other would
+    fall with it, and for these reasons: 1. If trial by the country were
+    broken down, the principle of no taxation without consent would fall
+    with it, because the government would then be _able_ to tax the people
+    without their consent, inasmuch as the legal tribunals would be mere
+    tools of the government, and would enforce such taxation, and punish men
+    for resisting such taxation, as the government ordered. 2. On the other
+    hand, if the principle of no taxation without consent were broken down,
+    trial by the country would fall with it, because the government, if it
+    could tax people without their consent, would, of course, take enough of
+    their money to enable it to employ all the force necessary for
+    sustaining its own tribunals, (in the place of juries,) and carrying
+    their decrees into execution.