Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-03-14

people therefore may instruct them.
L he relations between Constituent and
agent, never vary. The latter is obi
ged to conform to the proper dirsc-
tons of the former. Even'the Wings
OF England profess and practise this
doctrine. The history of that country
proves that the comraoners have usu-
ally been directed by the freeholders
or people who elected them. In lac.
tertimes, we find the celebrated Burke
defending himself on the hastings of
Bristol against the complaint OF voting
contrary 70 the will of his electors
but the fervid eioquence of an alni.
rable speech did not satisfy the peo-
pie; and Burke was under the neces.
sity OF declining the poll. But, we do
not require English authority 10 buoy
up the ,enets am maintaining. They
flow from the nature OF elective GO
vernment. Then, quitting this digrcs-
sion from the main subj let rs re-
sumo it;
III is said, however, taat senator's
are not the representatives of states.
but of the Unied S ates. If MAKING
laws for the United Sites impar,s to
them this character they may be SO
considered /; but 1t may be asked, do
the u. States appoint them? Are tn, "
responsible to the United States Is
"a senator of Penns ivania appointed
by Virginia, or is he responsible 10
Virginia tor his conduct? Cen the u.
STATES dismiss him at the expiration of
his period Of service? This doctrine
implies representation without respon-
sibaty,N representation too without
theIsewtrof appointment or removal,
and seems to be ar war with the repre-
sentative principle. Between the re.
preventative and the constituenr there
ought to be some points of coatact,
some reciprocity of feeling, of duty &
OF obligation but these are not TO be
found where the representative is trans
ferred from part TO the whole, from
a state to the United States. 10 re-
present is TO appear for or stand in the
place of the represented How, it
may be asked, how can be said 10 ap-
pear for or stand ir the place of Ma.
ryiand, when this state has had no a.
Igency in my appointment, & can have
more In my removal? If then do
not appear for, or stand in the place OF
Maryland, / am not her representa-.
tive. To admit this doctrine would
be to deny the right of instruction. uu-
less indeed a majority OF the whole
pc oplc OF the u. S. or a majority of
ell the states were to unite in it; and
the difficulty, if not the imprac,ica5ili-
~ ofsuch scheme, would be as fatal
&c the right as the denial oft.
" Is this right denied because
right implies remedy, and there ex-
lists no power ofcoercion? Then. for
soo.h, are our rights OF property often
~ deplorable situation; for the re-
medy is often protracted in our courts
OF justice beyond the period assigned
to ? seat even in the senate. Is there
nj repedX lett to our constituents
WIN the I'll pc Of reelection arrives
Is neSco@ Scion upon a sensitive o.
ani5Noas'Te preventative, that he ma
be indignantly dismissed from the Sc.
vice & confidence Of the people Yes.
the right OF instruction has it's remedv,
and the people know how and when to
apply it and though it may be drla,-
Ell, it's nevertheless eHicacious and Ger.
taio.
" Let me not be isunderstood--i
contending for the right of our consti-
tuents 20 instruct us: I mean the right
OF majority, fairly and unequivocally
expressed, ner of chosen few who
may assemble at coffee.house or am
hotel and imagine themselves the peo-
Pie---not of comnittee who shall fan.
cy themselves clothed with plenipoten-
tlary powers, and being irresponsible
themselves shall undertake to prescribe
rules OF condnct for the responsible a.
gents Of the people.
F" We seem to differ about the right
OF instruction, and here you have some
OF my reas ons ia favor of this right; and
that you may have my creed In extenso.
let me assure you, that such is my con.
viction OF its legitimacy and its conso.
nance with true republican principles,
that 1 would have voted against re.
new2kof the charter of ,b, 1T