Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-08-25
a voIcE BELOW TIE MOUNTAINS.

he Shar IA II Is necessary in Congress have Spea
ker coincling with the majority in order to make
| things glide smoothly on.
| VoIcE TIE MOUNTAINS.
ron THE ENQUIRER.
No. ".
RIGHT OF Observation-Disclosures QuAnrrR1Y
REVIEW.
The reader has seen the anii-rcpubican doctrine of
Dr. Cooper expressed in his cDtous sye--and also
the anpicatons OF il by the Reviewer. Ii is matter
oil some surprise that Doc Thomas Cooper, the dstin
guishcd President OF the South Carolina College should
advance such opinions. lie is most advantageou .ly
known both in the political and literary world We
should rot forget that these opinions however. are 'g
ed INTO pamphlet, in opposition 10 tLc tariff II il,
unhappiy, too much the .pirit of our times 10 accom-
moiae our opinions and actions 10 the circumstances in
which we ind ourselves rather than shape them by
the test OF souni reason, and " funla
mental principles" IL is too much the fashion, TO con.
si'er right, whatever is erpedent for the time 6ein
This error has filled tho nation with political heresies
and emryrc schemes for local IA well general
aggrandzement. All who belong TO the same school
OF politicians with the Doctor must admit that in This
instance he has fallen into it, 1.-The could not resist the
combination Of local interests in favor of manufactures
upon general and Const uunal principles IL il TO he
regretted, that with his acknowledged talents he has
sought to 10 so, by denying the vital principle which
alone preserves The purity OF representative democ-
racy The tariff Is odous enough, ia whatever aspect
we view it bu, how much more odious would he a
Congress, dscliming all obligation the will Of their
immediate constituents AMI refusing {" 10 be pasied"
| by that will
That the Editor the Review should entertain hese
opinions IL less strange They believed TO accord
ana he Is but consistent with himself in maintaining
| them The eagerness with which he sezes upon DR..
Us bold denial OF the right Of instruction. evinced by
his ingenious ampliiication Of the to sustain
IT. In his opening remarks lie tells us that with
view 10 further discussion and contribute as much as
we can TO bring this question fairly before the public
we are disposed (un, better nforme TO deny that the
constituents have right" SC. Sc From this appa 4.
rent disnIerestetncss expected candid AMI liberal
comparison oil the arguments pro and But, how
sadly is such expectation disappointed, let the SO
quel oil his article speak
Both DIR C. and tie Revi,wer open Che subject w
| laying down, oxorn tho very proposition 10 lie
prove o. rather, one, which, from its very terms wou
seem to exclude the right in question The art which
they employ in the use OF ,cords cannot avail them.
Dr. C. says, every called the national repre-
senfGtion ian national, not i0cdl representatives,
| The Reviewer denies that representative is Z" the
servant agent or representative of the constituents by
whom he IL "nOmtadtedIhe adroit use of the ori-
National representation is ingenious enough-bu,
the palm IS due to the Reviewer for converting an cleo
| ton into = nomination.
But il IL useless 10 eypose euch amsv Jey;ces The
main question is, whether not, those tcho elect
member TO Congress, have right 10 instruct him how
he shall vote
II is contended that the right does not exist
Congre ssmen are sent TO debate and after debate
decide The necessity for, and the obligation to, de-
odte are repeated over and over again, and urged in
every possible form. And, indeed, present Con.
gressmen seem 10 be disposed exercise this pve
TO its utmost eTtenf for they debate so MUCH that they
declde-and mus, as practical illustration of the
doctrine OF these writer, Congress has become ho-
dy Of windy, oiiy-tongued gentlemen, who consul,
the public time and the public money in idle debate
and leave the public business undone.
But, is insisted, that the members from Maine are
also members for Maryland--and the Constituents oil
Maryland have as much right require obedience from
the members iiom Maine, as from their State
And this Is attempted to be proved, by comparing pure
democracy win representative democracy.
In pWe democracy, the citizens would meet a.
equal members of The political community No ration
al man can contend, that the right of citizen to vote
IN such meeting, would be founded his pdrticuia,
rng Ia Nttll
Of the Community. They would all meet 10 express
their 'udp'd"dI opinions, every topic that might
claim their attention either private, local. generals
ard these three classes OF subjects, would claim the
consideration They would all, unques ionaby, pos
sess local interests and feelings and be entitled TO the
expression OF their individual opinions.-Upon the
ground OF abstract right, member Of such Assem-
bly,, would have the privilege Of giving whatever vote
he pieasedwhetber il be dictated by sectional or gen.
erai interest II the Community occupied but small
space or extent oil territory local interests an feelings
could huye but little sway, il any over h4 iudg n,ent
But, Whatever that interest feeling nigh, b., he
would have right consult IL. All ober n1e,nbee.
would stand unon the same ground Such an assem-
ige may be sad TO meet for the purposes OF compari-
son OF views discussions deiberaon, and final decision
Surely, no one member, number of members wohl
possess the RICH! TO instruct single indviiaal: BE
cause each would represent himself aud he in place
speak and act for himsel baing resOonsibe to- no one
whatever. They would for the pufuoss of taking
me general sense OF tho Community; and to give legal
effect and operation 10 the decision Of the majority -
and 70 ad, II you please. the sanction of the physical
vi 10 tbeiT decision. lie
~ would possess both tho right and the power govern
And this meeting would have other legitimate pur-
pose, but 10 ascertain what IL, in truth, the UW OF the
majority III any one member Thought proper TO shut
s ears against all argument, and pursue his personal
or individual viswsthough others might think them
hostile 10 the general interest-who could deny him
the right TO do so? Suppose, further, that the
majority FROM narrow views: from the fear of doin z
wrong; from any other asignablc cause, were 20 de-
eide against the interest IN opposition 10 The
enlfeates and unanswsrahle Arguments OF the minority
would they not have the right TO do so? Would moi
their decision be- binding! Men subjects in different
lightsand If, in democracy, the majority has right
rule, who dare search into their motives Of action
question the validity Of their fa;? IL is, surely the
moral and political dUty Of al 10 look with dintercst-
edness, to The general gool and 10 sacrifice upon ~
altar, private and local considerations. But Ibis duty
has 10 sanc0n beyond the bosom OF the member OF
pure democracy. Du ii is said. that " member who
attends meeting Of he wiols Community, attends Tor
the interest and on behalf Of the whole Community
lie surely attends as member Of the Community
| which Community is made M Of individuals, all pos
sessng, in the attributes Of humsn beings and
not Of Angels The public interest s made up OF Judi
vidual interests combined. And the closely iud-
viduals, IN pure democracy, adhere 10 their per
sonal interests, the certain the majority will speak
the common interest al this is obvious from the
ture OF tbings'-as the Reviewer says, The contra
Try We may speculate and thsorze all lives, upor
government and the principles Of action In public DO
des--and after oil, reference TO past history, and
tne experiences OF times will convince u.s. tina
an our beautiful aud abstract reverios, but tlt
coinage OF Tie braiD"at they do NOT bear the test
real Weaud attempted In practice, dissipsed IL
moment, by the passions and conflicting Interests o
mankind When the human family shall arrive al iIa