Source: https://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/sto-114/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:21:08+00:00

Document:
§ 129. The grantees were created absolute Lords Proprietaries, saving the faith, allegiance, and supreme dominion of the crown; and invested with as ample rights and jurisdictions, as the Bishop of Durham possessed in his palatine diocese. The charter seems to have been copied from that of Maryland, and resembles it in many of its provisions. It authorized the proprietaries to enact laws with the assent of the freemen of the colony, or their delegates; to erect courts of judicature; to appoint civil officers; to grant titles of honour; to erect forts; to make war, and in cases of necessity to exercise martial law; to build harbours; to make ports; to erect manors; and to enjoy customs and subsidies imposed with the consent of the freemen.3 And it further authorized the proprietaries to grant indulgences and dispensations in religious affairs, so that persons might not be molested for differences in speculative opinion with respect to religion, avowedly for the purpose of tolerating non-conformity to the Church of England.4 It further required, that all laws should “be consonant to reason, and as near as may be conveniently, agreeable to the laws and customs of this our kingdom of England.”5 And it declared, that the inhabitants and their children, born in the province, should be denizens of England, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of British born subjects.
§ 130. The proprietaries immediately took measures for the settlement of the province; and at the desire of the New England settlers within it, (whose disposition to emigration is with Chalmers a constant theme of reproach,) published proposals, forming a basis of government.6 It was declared, that there should be a governor chosen by the proprietaries from thirteen persons named by the colonists; and a general assembly, composed of the governor, council, and representatives of the people, who should have authority to make laws not contrary to those of England, which should remain in force until disapproved of by the proprietaries.7 Perfect freedom of religion was also promised; and a hundred acres of land offered, at a half penny an acre, to every settler within five years.
§ 132. In the year 1669, the proprietaries, dissatisfied with the systems already established within the province, signed a fundamental constitution for the government thereof, the object of which is declared to be, “that we may establish a government agreeable to the monarchy, of which Carolina is a part, that we may avoid making too numerous a democracy.”13 This constitution was drawn up by the celebrated John Locke; and his memory has been often reproached with the illiberal character of some of the articles, the oppressive servitude of others, and the general disregard of some of those maxims of religious and political liberty, for which he has in his treatises of government and other writings contended with so much ability and success. Probably there were many circumstances attending this transaction, which are now unknown, and which might well have moderated the severity of the reproach, and furnished, if not a justification, at least some apology for this extraordinary instance of unwise and visionary legislation.
§ 134. Such was the substance of this celebrated constitution. It is easy to perceive, that it was ill adapted to the feelings, the wants, and the opinions of the colonists. The introduction of it, therefore, was resisted by the people, as much as it could be; and indeed, in some respects, it was found impracticable.16 Public dissatisfaction daily increased; and after a few years’ experience of its ill arrangements, and its mischievous tendency, the proprietaries, upon the application of the people, (in 1693,) abrogated the constitution, and restored the ancient form of government. Thus perished the labours of Mr. Locke; and thus perished a system, under the administration of which, it has been remarked, the Carolinians had not known one day of real enjoyment, and that introduced evils and disorders, which ended only with the dissolution of the proprietary government.17 Perhaps in the annals of the world there is not to be found a more wholesome lesson of the utter folly of all efforts to establish forms of governments upon mere theory; and of the dangers of legislation without consulting the habits, manners, feelings, and opinions of the people, upon which they are to operate.
§ 135. After James the Second came to the throne, the same general course was adopted of filing a quo warranto against the proprietaries, as had been successful in respect to other colonies. The proprietaries, with a view to elude the storm, prudently offered to surrender their charter, and thereby gained time.18 Before any thing definitive took place, the revolution of 1688 occurred, which put an end to the hostile proceedings. In April, 1698, the proprietaries made another system of fundamental constitutions, which embraced many of those propounded in the first, and, indeed, was manifestly a mere amendment of them.
§ 139. The form of government conferred on Carolina, when it became a royal province, was in substance this. It consisted of a governor and council appointed by the crown, and an assembly chosen by the people, and these three branches constituted the legislature. The governor convened, prorogued, and dissolved the legislature, and had a negative upon the laws, and exercised the executive authority.26 He possessed also the powers of the court of chancery, of the admiralty, of supreme ordinary, and of appointing magistrates and militia officers. All laws were subject to the royal approbation or dissent; but were in the mean time in full force.
§ 140. On examining the statutes of South Carolina, a close adherence to the general policy of the English laws is apparent. As early as the year 1712, a large body of the English statutes were, by express legislation, adopted as part of its own code; and all English statutes respecting allegiance, all the test and supremacy acts, and all acts declaring the rights and liberties of the subjects, or securing the same, were also declared to be in force in the province. All and every part of the common law, not altered by these acts, or inconsistent with the constitutions, customs, and laws of the province, was also adopted as part of its jurisprudence. An exception was made of ancient abolished tenures, and of ecclesiastical matters inconsistent with the then church establishment in the province. There was also a saving of the liberty of conscience, which was allowed to be enjoyed by the charter from the crown, and the laws of the Province.27 This liberty of conscience did not amount to a right to deny the Trinity.28 The Church of England had been previously established in the province [in 1704] and all members of the assembly were required to be of that persuasion.29 Fortunately, Queen Anne annulled these obnoxious laws; and though the Church of England was established, dissenters obtained a toleration, and the law respecting the religious qualification of assembly-men was shortly afterwards repealed.
§ 141. The law of descents of intestate real estates, of wills, and of uses, existing in England, thus seem to have acquired a permanent foundation in the colony, and remained undisturbed, until after the period of the American Revolution.30 As in the other colonies, the registration of conveyances of lands was early provided for, in order to suppress fraudulent grants.
§ 142. In respect to North Carolina, there was an early declaration of the legislature  conformably to the charter, that the common law was, and should be in force in the colony. All statute laws for maintaining the royal prerogative and succession to the crown; and all such laws made for the establishment of the church, and laws made for the indulgence to Protestant dissenters; and all laws providing for the privileges of the people, and security of trade; and all laws for the limitation of actions and for preventing vexatious suits, and for preventing immorality and fraud, and confirming inheritances and titles of land, were declared to be in force in the province.31 The policy thus avowed was not departed from down to the period of the American Revolution; and the laws of descents and the registration of conveyances in both the Carolinas was a silent result of their common origin and government.
1. 1 Chalmers’s Annals, 313, 514, 515.
2. 1 Chalm. Annals, 519; 1 Holmes’s Annals, 327, 328; Marsh. Colon. ch. 5, p. 152; 1 Williamson’s North Carol. 87, 230; Carolina Charters, London, 4to.
3. 1 Holmes’s Annals, 327, 328. – This charter, and the second charter, and the fundamental constitutions made by the Proprietaries is to be found in a small quarto printed in London without date, which is in Harvard College Library.
4. 1 Holmes’s Annals, 328; 1 Hewatt’s South Car. 42 to 47.
5. Carolina Charter, 4to. London.
6. 1 Chalm. Annals, 515.
7. 1 Chalm. Annals, 518, 553; Marsh. Colon. ch. 5, p. 152.
8. 1 Chalm. Annals, 521; 1 Williams’s N. Car. 230, 231; 1 Holmes’s Annals, 340; Carolina Charters, 4to. London.
9. 1 Williams’s N. Car. 230, 237.
10. 1 Holmes’s Annals, 340; 1 Chalm. Annals,521,522;1 Williams’s N. Car. 230 to 254; Iredell’s Laws of N. Car. Charter, p. l to 7.
11. 1 Chalm. Annals, 519, 520, 524, 525; 1 Williams’s N. Car. 88, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 103, 114.
12. 1 Chalm. Annals, 521.
13. 1 Chalm. Annals, 526, 527; 1 Holmes’s Annals, 350, 351, and note; Carolina Charters, 4to. London, p. 33.
14. 1 Hewatt’s South Car. 42 to 47, 321, etc.; Carolina Charters, 4to. London, p. 33, etc.; 1 Chalm. Annals, 526; 1 Holmes’s Annals, 350, 351; 1 Williams’s N. Car. 104 to 111; Marsh. Colon. ch. 5, p. 154, 156; 1 Ramsay’s South Car. 31, 32.
15. Carolina Chartera, 4to. p. 45, §70, p. 47, §80; 1 Hewatt’s South Car. 321, etc.
16. 1 Ramsay’s South Car. 39, 43, 88; 1 Hewatt’s South Car. 45; 1 Chalmers’s Annals, 527, 528, 529, 530, 532, 550; Marsh. Colon. ch. 5, 156, 157, 159; 1 Williams’s N. Car. 122,143.
17. 1 Chalmers’s Annals, 552.
18. 1 Chalmers’s Annals, 549; 1 Holmes’s Annals, 416.
19. Hewatt’s South Carol. 45.
20. Dr. Ramsay treats these successive constitutions as of no authority whatsoever in the province, as a law or rule of government. But in a legal point of view the proposition is open to much doubt. 2 Ramsay’s South Carol. 121 to 124.
21. 1 Williams’s N. Car. 155.
22. Marsh. Colon. ch. 9, p. 246, 247; 1 Hewatt’s South Carol. 212, 318.
23. 1 Williams’s N. Car. 161, 162; 1 Ramsay’s South Carol. 56, etc. 88, 95; 1 Hewatt’s South Carol. 212, 318; I Holmes’s Annals, 523, 525; Marsh. Colon. ch. 9, p. 246.
24. Marsh. Colon. ch. 9, p. 247.
25. Marsh. Colon. ch. 9, p. 247; 1 Holmes’s Annals, 544.
26. 2 Hewatt’s South Car. ch. 7, p. 1 et seq.; 1 Ramsay’s South. Car. ch. 4, p. 95.
27. Grimke’s South Carolina Laws (1712), p. 81, 98, 99, 100.
28. Id. Act of 1703. p. 4.
29. 1 Holmes’s Annals, 489, 490, 491; 1 Hewatt’s South Carol. 166 to 177.
30. 2 Ramsay’s South Car. 130. – The descent of estates was not altered until 1791.
31. Iredell’s North Car. Laws, 1715, p. 18,19.

References: § 130

§ 132

§ 134

§ 135

§ 139

§ 140

§ 141

§ 142
 §70
 §80