Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-03-15

mencement OF its session TO its close, exhibited to
tne eyes oil disguised public the spectacle of civil
diScord aud usurpation' | know of no other in
strucuons; and II is for disobeying these nstruc-
tons, that Friend of Principle has encountered
the columns of the Richmond Enquirer with ex-
tracts from the Federalist and reflections of his
own, To prove that the right of nstructing the re-
preventative resides with the constituents. sup
pose tins proposition demonstrated, does il follow
from TINS that the Legislature of State has IA right
10 instruct tue delegation of that State in Congress-
10 my mind they are two distinct propositions; and
! me hfSt Is As true the second is erroneous If
| 'he Friend OF Principle had looked little more into
the exposition of our Constitution than he appears
t"have done, he would have seen that this right 10
uct Is portion of sovereignty residing III the
people, and the people only--and as long ~ they
e Seh', the representative Is left act according
TO the dictates OF his own Judgment. This was and
IS now enphaticaly the situation of Mr.. Clay
Tue great body of the Kentucky people have never
Instructed him upon the election of President. Upon
''s SUBJECT, the people of that State, during the
uhie 'ilat the election depending in Congress,
were silent, and have remained since; and a
lar as the Friend of Principle knows they are now
perfectly satisfied with the result. But all this
can aVaH Nj. Clay nothing. The Legislature OF
heh'ucky instructed him to vote fol Gen. jackson;
ne refused Ia he governed by their will; and the
FRIEND OF Principle calls him IAN apuState.n Mr.
Clay never yet protested Willingness TO be govern
ed ny the viii OF the Kentucky Legislature, and
trust III God never will profess such a detennina-
uoh' 10 blend the rights of the people with the
powers oil the Legislature, would throw our system
OF government confusion; nd the civil discord
prevailing in Kentucky will cover the Uuon as
soon as this broad line OF distinction shall be OBJ
liberated. Permit ask, if the representatives
Oh inc people IN the state governments have right
10 nstruct the representatives. of the people in the e
dera government, is not the reverse of the proposi-
ton equally true? Have not the members of Con
mi of ia. ia,
right to Know and express their will that the repre-
Sthtatives III the state government haveo And So
following the noble example of the Kentucky Legis
ture, suppose delegation III Congress should saw
to our next General Assembly that the grand Uni
versity of Virginia is established upon princjples
hostile to the wishes of the people of this State
aud, therefore, the law should be repealed. would
the Friend OF Principle consider the Assembly. as
republicans, bound to obey the will of these gem
tlemen! Would not al the advocates of state
rights and all the friends Of good order and regular
gopernnent cry out usurpation? And vet in princ-
pie, where is the difference The CATION in both
governments are the representatives of the people,
and II TINS gives the right to instruct, Congress has
1t IN as much perfection the State legislature
But why should be imagining cases to illustrate
tue truth OF this proposition, that the Legislature
have no right TO instruct the representation in Con-
gress, when tc very Legislature that usurped this
right furnishes, in their journals, case strong
er than any should feel disposed ina zine as pos
Sible ailude 10 the law by which the Judges of
the supreme court of Kentucky were deprived of
their Offices and a new court established. composed
OF men better suited 10 the temper of the times Ii
is well known that the Kentucky constitution or
ganizes its Judiciary in the way with the Fe-
deial const tuition, and the Same terms; and
consequently, the Congress of the Onion has Tie
same controu over the supreme court 81 the United
States that the Kentucky Legislature has ever its
supreme court. Ii is also we'll known that the s-
preme court of the United Statek, i'm Green rs
biddle, rendered judgment more obnoxious to
kentucky than any Judgment ever given by the
State judges. Would the Friend of Principe
have Mr. Clay to believe, that this factous vote
! by which the Judiciary of Kentucky have been
destroyed, was consoDen To the wishes of the State9
Ii so, ii his duty according to Tin argument as
soon as the tdIngs reached his ears, that such law
mad passed the Legislature Of Kentucky, to ask for
leave tn bring In bill to repeal that act of Con
9reSS' by winch the Supreme Court of the U States
Is established hope the Friend of Principle would
not wish To see such designating principles spread
| ing through the Union: but enough has been said
to shew the absurd claim OF the Kentucky Legisla
tuFe, in usurping the power Of instruction. H. CLAW
has always proessed a Willingness to be governed
by the VIII of his constituents, whenever that will
was fanly made known to him. Sy his vote on the
Compensation law, he has shewn Willingness to
abandon his own opinion when that opinion was
contfafyto the will of the people Who then is to be
considered the Purest republcan,the Friend of Prin-
cIpie, or Henry Clay? He who would take this
right from the people and confde it to the hands of
such tribunal as the Kentucky Legislatures or he
VINO regards 1t as the exercise ofSovercign Power
belonging TO the people and tie people only? /, is
only necessary TO state the propositions and refer
the question to the Judgment OF AN impartial pub
lie. Henry Clay has no cause dread the re suit
The Friend OF Principles will, trust, find but few
disposed To advocate principle like his
II they do, let them show, if they can, that the
majority in that body was the correct oroau of in
structon from the people of Kentucky, or that it
expressed the wishes of that State. Of both Mr.
Clay was the judge upon his own responsibility;
ana when 1t shall be found that the people of that
State are dissatisfied with his course il will he time
enough to condemn him fol- ha wing disobeyed the
VIII OF his constituents. or for having mistaken it,
AS to the vote in the Senate, upon his nomination
as Secretary of State, the mind that could perceive
any analogy between the vote in his case and the
one In the case OF Judge Chase, must be blind to the
difference between the most opposite things in ma
tue. Is there difference between conviction
for crime and the appreciation which follows merit
In the one case the insinuation is, that there was
not virtue IN that body to condemn--in the Other
win as much force, 1t might be said, there was not
vice enough to dsapprove. In looking at the votes
for Mr. Clay, it is impossible for party zeal itself in
Its olndest paroXysn, not to see that MANY who
voted Tor Mr.. Clay aIc aS high-minded republicans
as any IN the ranks of Oppostion, and that for
talents and weight of character they yield TO none
OF his adversaries. Do these lovers of the rights
OF the people proceed upon the maxim that the
majority of mankind knaves or fools, and that
1t was disgrace to them to be found in a majority
when Mr.. Macon and Mr.. Tazeweu were in the
minority: Does the writer in the Enquirer who
draws the parallel, mean to insist that the Senate
aching Judlcialy, ought to- have obsyed the will of
people. and ,,I fI,,,Ir,