Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1841-05-13
From the Lexington Star.
THE RIGHT OF INsTRUCTIo,


From the Lexington Star.
THE RIGHT OF INSTRUCTION.
In the discussion which took place between
Mr.. Mcdowell and Mr.. Stuart, OIL the first
day OF the Superior Court, this question was
alluded to, but the lateness Of the hour, and
the natural impatience Of the people after so
long debate, prevented that full exposition
oil the subject which its importance demand
ed, and which perfect understanding of the
opinions OF the gentlemen themselves seemed
to require. Much misapprehenson existed
as to The e1ienf to which the former gentleman
would carry the doctrine, and the object of
this communication (Which has been prepared
without consultation with Mr.. McDowell,)
is to place him in his proper position before
the people of Rockbridge and the country
gencrally.-This is due both to him and the
political party with which he is associated.
The right of constituents to instruct their
representatives, is not only one which has
been established in Virginia upon habitual
and almost immemorial acknowledgement, but
y also one which is most unequivocally set
forth in our ''BILL OF RIGHTS" Bv
That bill 1t is declared 'Mat oil po,ver is rested
a., and consequently deriued from THE PEG
FILE; that magistrates are their Trustees and
Arpanfs, and at ALL TIMES omenaJe to
Aem." This declaration, (made in 1916, and
re-adopted in 1929, by the unanimous vote
OF the Convention) that magistrates" that
is, public officers, are the ''husfees and SER
.sn's" Of the people, and sat all times amen
able TO Mem," covers the whole ground, and
the exact ground for which Mr.. Mcdowell
contendcd.
But how is the Representative in Congress
he who is the direct agent of the people in
forming and enacting portion of the laws
winch govern them, and therefore more i'm
medlately than any other public officer, the
organ OF their will-how is he sat all times"
amenable to them-amenable for direction
and control, unless it be through the form of
Instructions Suppose it to be agreed, how
ever, as 1t is generally agreed, that the rep
fesentative is amenable to his constituents in
TINS form of instruction, then it is asked are
tlere no limits to this right of instruction -
Are there no obligations to obey May
the constituent body give what instruction
they please, and must the representative obey
IL without question or dissent?
That there are limits, and obvious and i'm
Peratlve limits, within which both the right
and the duty must be brought, is certainly
true. In the first place the instructions given,
and to be obeyed, must relate strictly to the
junction which the representative has under
taken on his part, and with which he has
been delegated on the part of his constituents
TO execute. He is the "trustee and servant"
OF MS constituents, in relation to that trust.
and none 0ther.-IIe must therefore be COM
manded, II commanded at all, in relation to
u, and Hence were a constituent body vicious
enough, or foolish enough to instruct rep
reSentatlve holding a Legislative trust, to do
an act morally wrong, he would be under no
sort of obligation to obey.
In the second place, the instruction must
be such as 1t would be competent for the con-
stltuent body giving it, to carry into effect
for Themselves. could they be personally as
sembled-such as they have not forbidden To-
themselves, by any previous and binding act
or agreement of their own. If therefore any
constituent body should require represent
tatlve to do what by any previous and bind
ing act, or agreement Of their o,on. they had
taken from themselves the right of doing, their
requirement would be wholly without obliga-
ton. Thus If they should instruct their
in Congress, to vote for a law
abridging the Freedom of the Press, or the
Freedom of speech, or hindering the people
from keeping or having arms, OF prohibit
ing the free exercise of religion, or establish
ing particular religion, the instruction
would be wholly nugatory, and the represent
tatlve under no sort of obligation to obey it.
Why would it be nugatory? Because the
constituents being parties to the constitution,
had expressly in that instrument parted with
all right to legislate through Congress upon
these subiects-and consequently with all
right TO instruct their representative to legs-
late upon them. So too, if representative
from either a free or slave State, were in
structed to vote for the abolition Of Slavery
In those States where it exists, he would be
under no sort of obligation TO obey, because
the representation from these States being en-
pressly based upon the basis of ISlavery, by
the Constitution, none ofthe parties to that
instrument and of course none Of their repre-
sentatlves can touch that basis in any way,
unit! the constitution itself be changed
1T representatives constituents instruct
ed him to vote for any of these questions, he
would not be bound to obey. For the Con-
stitution forbade him so to vote, because it did
in express terms forbid the constituent body.
The Constitution was prior and paramount
declaration of the peoples will in these cases,
and must stand as such until changed or re-
voked in the manner prescribed by itself.
Bu: what IS the duty of a representative in
cases Of doubtful constitutional construction,
where different opinions may be entertained,
and are entertained, and where there are no
express and positive terms upon which an
agreed Interpretation can be fxed1
Looking to the Constitution as the declar-
ed will of the States, and of the peopIe who