FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77  
78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   >>   >|  
rk, (adopted in 1777,) uses the word in the same manner: "Sec. 6. That every male inhabitant of full age, who has personally resided in one of the counties of this state for six months, immediately preceding the day of election, shall at such election be entitled to vote for representatives of the said county in assembly, if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, within the said county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State. _Provided always_, That every person who now is a _freeman of the city of Albany, or who was made a freeman of the city of New York_, on or before the fourteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, and shall be actually and usually resident in the said cities respectively, shall be entitled to vote for representatives in assembly within his place of residence." The constitution of South Carolina, (formed in 1778,) uses the word "free" in a sense which may, at first thought, be supposed to be different from that in which it is used in the preceding cases: Sec. 13. The qualification of electors shall be that "every _free white man_, and no other person," &c., "shall be deemed a person qualified to vote for, and shall be capable of being elected a representative." It may be supposed that here the word "free" is used as the correlative of slavery; that it presumes the "whites" to be "free;" and that it therefore implies that other persons than "white" may be slaves. Not so. No other parts of the constitution authorize such an inference; and the implication from the words themselves clearly is, that _some_ "white" persons might not be "free." The distinction implied is between those "white" persons that were "free," and those that were not "free." If this were not the distinction intended, and if _all_ "white" persons were "free," it would have been sufficient to have designated the electors simply as "white" persons, instead of designating them as both "free" and "white." If therefore it were admitted that the word "free," in this instance, were used as the correlative of slaves, the implication would be that _some_ "white" persons were, or might be slaves. There is therefore no alternative but to give to the word "free," in this in
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77  
78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
persons
 

person

 

slaves

 
constitution
 
supposed
 
distinction
 

implication

 

electors

 

freeman

 

correlative


preceding
 
entitled
 

election

 

county

 

assembly

 

representatives

 

simply

 

capable

 

qualified

 

deemed


designating
 

elected

 

alternative

 
instance
 

qualification

 
admitted
 
whites
 

authorize

 

inference

 

thought


sufficient

 

designated

 
slavery
 
presumes
 

implies

 
intended
 

implied

 

representative

 

freeholder

 

possessing


freehold

 

aforesaid

 
twenty
 

pounds

 
shillings
 
yearly
 

rented

 

tenement

 
immediately
 

months