Some of the colonies considered it advisable to make regulations regarding the Indians after emancipation. A Virginia act of 1670 specified that former Indian slaves “though baptized and enjoined their own freedom” could not purchase Christian white servants. The law did not debar them, however, from buying any of their own race.[1086] Both New York by the act of 1712,[1087] and New Jersey by the act of 1713,[1088] decreed that no freed Indian could hold any real estate property in the colony concerned. South Carolina and North Carolina, also, regarded the presence of manumitted Indians in the colony as undesirable. The possibility that freedmen of this sort might stir up disturbance among their fellows who remained in slavery was too great a risk. A South Carolina act of 1722 decreed that, if owners freed any slave, they must make provision for his passage out of the province. Such freedman, if he did not leave the province within twelve months after his manumission (being at liberty to do so) would lose the benefit of his emancipation, and continue to be a slave, unless the manumission were confirmed by both houses of the legislature.[1089] A further act of 1735 required that the slave when manumitted should quit the province within the period of six months following his manumission, and not return within seven years.[1090] The North Carolina act of 1741 specified that, if any freedman did not depart from the province within six months following his manumission, or should thereafter return to the province, the church wardens of the parish where he might be at the end of one month after his return, were to sell him at public auction at the next session of the county court.[1091] The freeing of slaves who after their manumission might possess no means of support and in consequence become a burden upon the community, presented a problem that often needed attention. Connecticut understood the value of freeing worn-out slaves so as to avoid supporting them in their time of uselessness; hence in 1702 the general court enacted that every slave owner who freed his slave should in the years following manumission, if the former slave came to want, meet the expense which the local government encountered in caring for the freedman.[1092] The act was renewed by the court in 1703.[1093] Another act of practically the same tenor and including “Spanish Indians” was passed in 1711.[1094] An act of 1777, also, relieved the former owner of a freedman from any obligation to contribute to his support if the act of manumission had been sanctioned in due form by the selectmen of the former owner’s town.[1095]