Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-09-05

The foundation of the The theory OF instruc'
ion .,nears 10 be this: That all power Is or.
;yinaljv in the People; that they have instituted
n, for their benefit, and may give 10 us
form apy modification, at their pleasure; tha'
therefore, is rot in the Government,
hut in The People; that, In delegatine hmHea
mower. whether Executive, Legislative, or Ju
diciaI. thew do no. paif ,cfh their absolute sove'
reipnty: that Repre- sentatives are the Hgents oy
whom the People act, and that the People are
the Principals; and that, from the relation OF
Principal and Agent, the former must have Inc
right 10 instruct the latter.
It's evident that this deduction would SUD-
ice, Representatives in Congress to instructions
from the People Of the United States, only, by
whom the powers and duties Of Representatives
have been prescribed. To support the doctrine
of instructions from a part OF the People TO
Agents empo wered by the Uho!s, II is contenoea
that each Representative, though empowered
by the whole, and acting for the whole, IS yet
responsible only to part; 10 wit: his immedieie
constituents, by whom She was appointed, ana
TO whom he must owe his reelection. fieie,
too, it is asserted, on the principle OF response
6iHiy, thai the constituents and theli aePreseh
tatiye stand in the relation OF principal and 6Sen'
and that the right Of the principal TO instruct
or command the agent follows as consequence,
of that relation.
From this doctrine of responsibility Ut the
Representative to his constituents, and oil Inc
consequent right of constituents 10 instruct those
who owe this responsibility, another has sprung
up. 1.-THE Representative, il is said, being thus
responsible 20 his constituents, is therefore
bound to obey their express instructions, is he
not equally bound, by the same principle, 10
hot tay
be ascer,ained; or, in other words, obey their
implied ,nsructions9 Distinguished individuals,
I am well aware, have admitted the last princi'
ole as general rule, but believe that there is
no, one who has not given 10 ii the following
limitations:
|. That these implied Instructions must re-
late TO questions Of erpedie1cy only.
@ That they must emanate from the m1medi-
ate constituents Of the Representative.
5. That they shall not conflict with his NOR
al obligations, or with his paramount obliga.
ton to obey the provisions Of lhe Constitution.
4. That the Representative must be the sole
Judge Of the cases in which these limitations
apply No one else can be.
S. That the Representative and his cons,ilu.
en,s must be the sole judges ofthe existence Of
these implied instructions.
To these Mr.. Clay has added another:
That the constituents must be in posses
sion IF all the material facts which can guide the
decision of the Representative.
it is not my intention, because not necessary
| to my purpose, to examine the correctness Of
the prime piles, or the process of reasoning, BY
| which the doctrine Of the obliga DRY force Of
implied ins,ruc lions, however modified, has been
| supported. Twill venture, however, 10 assert
tina, the basis on which have placed il is the
only one on whick it can be reared; and that
this doctrine, as proposed and limited by MIR
| CLAW. had been carried as far as was ever at
tempted by any rational politician, before the
era Of Mr. McDuffie.
| Let us now, for the purpose Of comparison
again advert to Mr. McDufhe's principle. He
not only asserts tha, the Representative is
hou,.d obey the implied instructions OF his con-
,tiuents, but to consider the resolution OF a
Legislature as 'incontrover,ibIe' evidence Of The
,fN ofihe People Of state; and the will Of the
| People of the Sta,e, thus authenticated, as evi
dcnce Of the implied instructions Of the con
stituents. He thus advances two steps beyond
| an absolute, unqualified obligation Of the Rep
resentative to obey unlimited implied instruc.
| lions, TO wit: that resolution Of Legislature
| is incon,rover,ible evidence Of the popular wil
| Of the State, and that this will must be consid.
cred by The Representative as implied instruc-
| tons from his constituents. Nor IS this all
Having designediy omitted the limitations pro
posed by Mr.. Clay, he has thereby deprived
his Representative Of all discretion, and sub
iec'ed him to The imperative obligation of i'm.
piled Instructions, authenticated by resolu-
ton of Legislature, even if it should en- Join a
violation of all moral duties, draw down upon
his country incalculable mischief, or subyeri
that Constitution which he had solemnly sworn
to support.
A doctrine like this deserves no comment;
for who is there so bold, excep, Mr.. McDufiie,
| as TO stand up in its defence? II strikes at the
roo, Of liberty. II is inc alculably more danger
Gus than the mos, absolute denial of ,hr right
of he People to instruct. II would take all
power from the People, and render the Repre-
| sentative, in reality, responsible, not to Them,
but to Legislature. To Legislatures instruct
ing? No. To Legislature giving "incon,ro-
| vertible" evidence O! the popular will, & thus
invested with the new power of authenticatimg
implied instructions. Who does not see tina,
Ibis would be merging the Government of the
Union int n The Legislatures of the States and