had the office searched for
it; but the papers had fallen into such disorder as to preclude a hope
of its discovery. Most of them were imperfect, and many were lost or
misplaced. But Mr Gibson's remembrance of the decision is perfect, and
entitled to full confidence. That the case was not reported, is
probably owing to the fact that the judges gave no reasons; and the
omission is the more to be regretted, as a report of it would have put
the question at rest, and prevented much unpleasant excitement. Still,
the judgment is not the less authoritative as a precedent. Standing as
the court of last resort, that tribunal bore the name relation to this
court that the Supreme Court does to the Common Pleas; and as its
authority could not be questioned then, it cannot be questioned now.
The point, therefore, is not open to discussion on original grounds.

"But the omission of the judges renders it proper to show that their
decision was founded in the true principles of the constitution. In the
first section of the third article it is declared, that `in elections by
the citizens, every _freeman_ of the age of twenty-one years, having
resided in the State two years before the election, and having within
that time paid _a state or county tax_,' shall enjoy the rights of an
elector. Now, the argument of those who assert the claim of the
coloured population is, that a negro is a _man_; and when not held to
involuntary service, that he is free, consequently that he is a
_freeman_; and if a freeman in the common acceptation of the term, then
a freeman in every acceptation of it. This pithy and syllogistic
sentence comprises the whole argument, which, however elaborated,
perpetually goes back to the point from which it started. The fallacy
of it is its assumption that the term `freedom' signifies nothing but
exemption from involuntary service; and that it has not a legal
signification more specific. The freedom of a municipal corporation, or
body politic, implies fellowship and participation, of corporate rights;
but an inhabitant of an incorporated place, who is neither servant nor
slave, though bound by its laws, may be no freeman in respect to its
government. It has indeed been affirmed by text writers, that
habitance, paying scot and lot, give an incidental right to corporate
freedom; but the courts have refused to acknowledge it, even when the
charter seemed to imply it; and when not derived from prescription or
grant,