Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-05-16


that character they connected with the federal GO
vernmeht, instrumental in the execution of some of
its powers Still less do they operate upon TIE Legts-
at,c of Pirgia erclsirey of course cannot consider
myself rs the representative Of that Legislature erre-
& as ais agent and bound al erec7,.e rs trfN
on this floor, &c &C. II is fot RaessGry do mean
TO question the night OF Mc State Legislatures; so long proc-
test Upon, 70 instruct de Senator's Of the u Sfas chosen
by thol respectively (oo sharp for the denial of the
rght because that might produce an unncanncr and
useless discussion about terms but inquire
whether the exercise of the right imposes constitution
al obligation on the Senator instructed TO obey; in
what the real obligation consists whether the instruc
ton IS inunctve and compulsory him. or addressed
only to his dscretion: Or. liz other words whether the
Senator instructed has not right to cisobevp And
whether such dsobedence violates any moral or poll
teal obligation"
it maniiestly appears, from these Instructions that
conviction of the the original bank
aw was the sole nducemeut with Legislature for Civ
ing ten' and here sir, permit express hope, that
The arguments hare urge taror tbs opinion will
amply justify the legislature IN the conviction under
which Il has acted. (Nly argument made support of the
principle OF the instructions Permit me also to rena k
SIR that 1ntilt cannot admit that instructions IN erery
case possess mandatory influence orer The Senator; and
whist think the practice of giving instructions in gene
rail- and p0 general points fYolirY IS attended with in
urouS effects the proceedings of this governments
&c. get an case Of rights reservsd to tie STATES the g.
tdfureSnot only hare The right, out as 'hi y 10 cypress
Their opinions TO- instruct their Senator's tor will not
government"
From these passages, il is evident that Mr. Giles de-
MES 10 legislative instructions, mandatory influence
lie does not consider Virginia Senator, "the Repre-
sentative of the General Assembly, but of the peope cf
the United States deputed thereto by the legislature
The laws which such Senator contributes to pass not
operating exclusively, upon the Legislature of Yrgi
MIA, she could not consider himself as the Representa-
tive of that Legislature exclusively as its agent. and
in oil
right OF the Legislature to instruct but he sneaut to
enquire If the exercise of the right imposed consti-
tutonal obligation the Senator instructed TO obey;
IN what The real obligation TO obedience consists whe
tier the instruction. is injunctye and compulsory on
him, or addressed only to his discretion; or in other
words, whether the Senator instructed has not right
| to disobey?n
we have selected these passages as plainly denoting
the ground upon which Mr.. Giles places the rirbt Of
instruction., and plainly establishing the opinion that
it Is IN fact equivalent in consequence at least TO an
absolute denial of the right to instruct To saw that
the Legislature has right 10 instruct but that s3 So
nator has right TO disobey, say that the servant
equal to the master and has exactly the same regret
10 uisobey that the master has command his obed
ence Can any proposition be more absurd! Does not
Tue right 10 instruct, necessarily imply the obligation on
'he part OF the instructed to obey How is the right
ever to be enforced but by the Acknowledgement BY the
instructed, that he has moral right to dsobev Bv
granting then that the Legislature had the ,r6, m in
siruct Mr. Giles has admitted the obligation Of the in
struction to obey. In that admission he surren5ere
the ground, and precludes himself from all Justification
Tor dlsobedence. How two rights essentially hos
tle exist together Can two individuals have hostile
T1SHtS 10 the same property, and both be good'
| We know that Mr. Giles has never actualJv iisobA,
ed instructions, and it is from no design to niure him
ID public estimation, that we combat his extraordinary
doctrine. 1t is to contribute mite preserve the
docrne that the constituent has absolute right to in
struct and that the Representative is absolutely bound
TO ooey-a right without which, as has been well oh
served Representative Governments are despotsms
limited to short periods'-and from which so ranv 10
publicans are aposatzing that we have vcntured o diff
fer with hin. II the Senator has right TO disober
If instructions to be considered as addressed TO his
discretion and not to his dmy--if he is to view them
only as the best evidence of the sentiments of the State
and II TINS ne1o doctrine, much at variance with
The OH Republican doctrine, is to be generally received
the right TO instructis not worth straw We shall
on this subject await tue further development of MIR
Giles argument
In two ofhis ttcts Mr.. Giles is mistaken. The seDa.
tors from Virginia, instructed on the Missouri
question We have had time to examine the re-,
cords ofhe Legislature, but are almost certain that
the instructions contemplated were lost in the Senate.
If they we're never given, follows that they were not
disobeyed' 1t might therefore well follow too, that
Mr.. Peasants might have forgotten what he never
knew, and that dsobedencc never committed, rnirt
sit lightly on his conscience.
His other mistake IS that the same person in his last
message to the Legislature gave MIR. Giles passing
blow &c We know not vino the persons are that sup
posed so-0u this we know, that they were in error
No such boe was given, intended to be given. To
wards Mr. Giles. as VIC have heard hundred times
that persons feelings, Individually and politically are
aud always have been, the most friendly descr,tion
and far from wishing to njure his eecoD he was well
disposed, as far as we bel icve, to promote H.