rk, (adopted in 1777,) uses the word in the
same manner:

"Sec. 6. That every male inhabitant of full age, who has personally
resided in one of the counties of this state for six months,
immediately preceding the day of election, shall at such election be
entitled to vote for representatives of the said county in assembly,
if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder,
possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, within the said
county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of
forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State.
_Provided always_, That every person who now is a _freeman of the
city of Albany, or who was made a freeman of the city of New York_,
on or before the fourteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord
one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, and shall be actually
and usually resident in the said cities respectively, shall be
entitled to vote for representatives in assembly within his place of
residence."

The constitution of South Carolina, (formed in 1778,) uses the word
"free" in a sense which may, at first thought, be supposed to be
different from that in which it is used in the preceding cases:

Sec. 13. The qualification of electors shall be that "every _free
white man_, and no other person," &c., "shall be deemed a person
qualified to vote for, and shall be capable of being elected a
representative."

It may be supposed that here the word "free" is used as the correlative
of slavery; that it presumes the "whites" to be "free;" and that it
therefore implies that other persons than "white" may be slaves. Not so.
No other parts of the constitution authorize such an inference; and the
implication from the words themselves clearly is, that _some_ "white"
persons might not be "free." The distinction implied is between those
"white" persons that were "free," and those that were not "free." If
this were not the distinction intended, and if _all_ "white" persons
were "free," it would have been sufficient to have designated the
electors simply as "white" persons, instead of designating them as both
"free" and "white." If therefore it were admitted that the word "free,"
in this instance, were used as the correlative of slaves, the
implication would be that _some_ "white" persons were, or might be
slaves. There is therefore no alternative but to give to the word
"free," in this in