It is obvious that the word "free" affords no argument for slavery, unless a meaning correlative with slavery be _arbitrarily_ given to it, for the very purpose of _making_ the constitution sanction or recognize slavery. Now it is very clear that no such meaning can be given to the word, _for such a purpose_. The ordinary meaning of a word cannot be thus arbitrarily changed, _for the sake of sanctioning a wrong_. A choice of meaning would be perfectly allowable, and even obligatory, if made for the purpose of _avoiding_ any such sanction; but it is entirely inadmissable for the purpose of giving it. The legal rules of interpretation, heretofore laid down, imperatively require this preference of the right, over the wrong, in all cases where a word is susceptible of different meanings. The English law had for centuries used the word "free" as describing persons possessing citizenship, or some other franchise or peculiar privilege--as distinguished from aliens, and persons not possessed of such franchise or privilege. This law, and this use of the word "free," as has already been shown, had been adopted in this country from its first settlement. The colonial charters all, (probably without an exception,) recognized it. The colonial legislation generally, if not universally, recognized it. The state constitutions, in existence at the time the constitution of the United States was formed and adopted, used the word in this sense, and no other. The Articles of Confederation--the then existing national compact of union--used the word in this sense, and no other. The sense is an appropriate one in itself; the most appropriate to, and consistent with the whole character of the constitution, of any of which the word is susceptible. In fact, it is the only one that is either appropriate to, or consistent with, the other parts of the instrument. Why, then, is it not the legal meaning? Manifestly it _is_ the legal meaning. No reason whatever can be given against it, except that, if such be its meaning, _the constitution will not sanction slavery_! A very good reason--a perfectly unanswerable reason, in fact--in favor of this meaning; but a very futile one against it. It is evident that the word "free" is not used as the correlative of slavery, because "Indians not taxed" are "excluded" from its application--yet they are not therefore slaves.