The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-02-07
Extract from the opinions Of Judge CASTOR,
IN the State us. Manuel, 1888, Der. and Bat.
Rep. maze "a.

Extract from the opinions Of Judge CASTOR,
in the State cs Manuel, 1888, Der and Bat.
Rep. page "a. s.f 1895 s
According to the laws of this State, all
human beings within it who are not slaves.
fall within one of two classes. Whatever
distinctions c.ay have existed in the Roman
law between citizens and free inhabitants
they are unknown to our institutions Be
fore our Revolution all free persons born with
in the dominions of the king of Great Bri-
tain. whatever their color or complexion.
were native born British ubjects-those born
out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery
did not exist in England but it did exist in
the British colonies. Slaves were not in
legal parlance persons. but property The
moment the incapacity-or disqualification
of slavery was removed-thcy became per-
sons, and were then either British subjects Or
not British subjects, accordingly as they were
or were not born within the allegiance of the
British king. Upon the Revolution, no other
change took place in the law of North Caro-
lima, than was consequent upon the transit
ton from colony dependent on an Euro
pean king to free and sovereign state.
Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in
North Carolina became North Carolina free
men. Foreigners until made members of the
State continued aliens. Slaves manumitted
here become freemen-and therefore if born
within North Carolina are citizens of North
Carolina-and all free persons born within
the State are born citizens of the State.
A few only of the principal objections
which have been urged against this view of
what we consider the legal doctrine, will be
noticed 1t has been said that by the con-
stitution of the United States the power of
naturalization has been conferred exclusively
upon Congress therefore it cannot be-
competent for any state by its municipal reg
ulatiOns to make citizen. But what is nat
uralization9 1t is the removal of the disr-
Utilities of Glieaage. Emancipation is the re-
Inoval of the incapacity of slaoery. The lat
ter depends wholly upon the internal regula-
lions Of the State-the former belongs to the
government of the United States. Itwould
be a dangerous mistake to confound Them.
1t has been said that before our Revolu-
ton free persons of color did not exercise the
right of voting for members of the colonial
Legislature. How this may have been, it
would be difficult at this time to ascertain.
Z 1t is certain however that very few, if any,
could have claimed the right of suffrage, for
reason Of a very different character than
the one supposed The principle of freehold
suffrage seems to have been brought over
from England with the first colonists, and to
have been preserved almost Invariably in the
COLONY ever afterwards. In the act of 1743.
CHI. 1, (Swann's Revisal, ILL., it will be seen
that freehold of fifty acres was necessary
to entitle the inhabitant of county to vote,
and by the act of I'd Sept. of 1746, CHI. I,
Ibid. 1923, the free holders only of the respee-
tive towns of Edenton, Bath, Newbern and
Wilmington were declared entitled to vote
for members of the Colonial Legislature.
The very Congress which framed our consti
tuition, was chosen by freeholders. Thatcon-
sstitution extended the elective franchise to
every freeman who had arrived at the age of
81, and paid public tax and it is a mat
ter of universal notoriety that under it, free
persons without regard to color, claimed and
exercised the franchise until it was taken
from free mell of color few years since by
our amended constitution. 9 But surely the
possession of political power is not essential
to constitute a. citizen. II it be, then wO
men, minors, and persons who have not paid
public taxes are not citizens-and free white
men who have paid public taxes and arrived
at full age, but have not freehold of fifty
acres, inasmuch as they may vote for one
branch and cannot vote for the other branch
Of our Legislature would be in an intern9di-
ate state a sort Of hybrids between citizens
and not citizens. ~ The term tscitizehn as Rn-
derstood in our law,is precisely analogous
to the term ssaject in the common law, and
the change of phrase has entirely resulted
from the change Of government The soyer-i
eighty has been transferred from one man
to the collective body Of the people land he
who before was subject Of the kingm is
now citizen of the State"