ned no
recognition of slavery. The only words in them, that could be claimed by
any body as recognizing slavery, are the following, in Art. 4, Sec. 1.

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and
intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union,
_the free inhabitants_ of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds
and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all the
privileges and immunities of _free citizens_ in the several States;
and _the people_ of each State shall have free ingress and regress to
and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges
of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and
restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively."

There are several reasons why this provision contains no legal
recognition of slavery.

1. The true meaning of the word "free," as used in the English law, in
the colonial charters, and in the State constitutions up to this time,
when applied to persons, was to describe citizens, or persons possessed
of franchises, as distinguished from aliens or persons not possessed of
the same franchises. Usage, then, would give this meaning to the word
"free" in this section.

2. The rules of law require that an innocent meaning should be given to
all words that will bear an innocent meaning.

3. The Confederation was a league between states in their corporate
capacity; and not, like the constitution, a government established by
the people in their individual character. The confederation, then, being
a league between states or corporations, as such, of course recognized
nothing in the character of the state governments except what their
corporate charters or state constitutions authorized. And as none of the
state constitutions of the day recognized slavery, the confederation of
the state governments could not of course recognize it. Certainly none
of its language can, consistently with legal rules, have such a meaning
given to it, when it is susceptible of another that perfectly accords
with the sense in which it is used in the constitutions of the states,
that were parties to the league.

4. No other meaning can be given to the word "free" in this case,
without making the sentence an absurd, or, at least, a foolish and
inconsistent one. For instance,--The word "free" is joined to the word
"citizen." What reason could there be in applying the term "free" to the
word "ci