[12] “Freedom in this country,” said Judge Crabb, “is not a mere name—a cheat with which the few gull the many. It is something substantial. It embraces within its comprehensive grasp, all the useful rights of man; and it makes itself manifest by many privileges, immunities, external public acts. It is not confined in its operation to privacy, or to the domestic circle. It walks abroad in its operations—transfers its possessor, even if he be black, or mulatto, or copper colored, from the kitchen and the cotton field, to the court house and the election ground, makes him talk of Magna Charta and the constitution; in some states renders him a politician—brings him acquainted with the leading citizens—busies himself in the political canvass for office—takes him to the ballot box; and, above all, secures to him the enviable and inestimable privilege of trial by jury. Can it be said, that there is nothing of a public nature in a right, that thus, from its necessary operation, places a man in many respects on an equality with the richest, and the greatest, and the best in the land, and brings him in contact with the whole community?” Vaughan v. Phebe, 1 Martin & Yerger, 1 (1827). [13] Matilda v. Crenshaw, 1 (1827). [14] Vaughan v. Phebe, 1 Martin & Yerger, 1 (1827). [15] Acts of 1817, Ch. 103, Sec. 1. [16] Sylvia and Phillis v. Covey, 4 Yerger, 27 (1883). [17] Acts of 1715, Ch. 19, Sec. 9; Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 48. [18] Acts of 1783, Ch. 14, Sec. 2. [19] Manuscripts in State Archives. [20] Acts of 1815, Ch. 138, Sec. 1. [21] Acts of 1819, Ch. 35, Sec. 2. [22] Acts of 1825, Ch. 24, Sec. 1. [23] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 6. [24] Acts of 1835, Ch. 9, Secs. 9-11. [25] Kentucky, Maryland, Georgia, and Alabama were the other four. See footnote, Wheeler, Op. Cit., 213. [26] Acts of 1838, Ch. 133, Sec. 1. [27] Acts of 1848, Ch. 50, Sec. 1. [28] Acts of 1858, Ch. 86, Secs. 1-2. [29] Infra, pp. 59-79; 102-152. [30] Wheeler, Op. Cit., 190. [31] Porter v. Blackmore, 2 Caldwell, 555 (1865); see also 5 Caldwell, 209; 3 Heiskell, 662; and 10 Lea, 663. [32] Judge Catron held that “what is earned by the slave belongs to the master by the common law, the civil law, and the recognized rules of property in the slaveholding states of this Union.” University v. Cambreling, Yerger, 86 (1834). [33] Acts of 1803, Ch. 13, Sec. 4. [34] Turner v. Fisher, 4 Sneed, 210 (1856).