Holly Springs gazette., 1843-09-29


people 50 10 organize their constitution. a
10 embrace every rule which must fegnlst,
toe varied relations OF their citizens, or L
defiae and limit the discretion Of every dc
parment aud Of every officer of lie coin
monwealth. the infinite variety o. case!
IA which they are required to act. This j
1pacelIarly the case in reference to the legiS
latIve department The constitution may
and should define and limit lis genelaI pow
efs, but the wide Geld OF policy and expedi
Ifney must from absolute necessity, be com
milled to-the discretion Of that department o
The government whose exclusive da'y il Is
10 adjussghe code of municipal law TO the e
mefgent wants or interests OF the commani
Il ty. Hence arises. on the part of the people,
acting not through the folms Of the constitu-
1 tieE, but apart from It. and in their sove-
reign capacity, the rightto instruct those
VIC compose tie legislative department, en-
the questions OF mere policy OF exptdiency
/ involving national intefesIs This right OF
! instruction, Which is coeval with the exis-
teuce of our institutions, has been apilv ter
med q constitutional, common law right,
and it is extended and applied in practice to
all eases who're the representative has the
right to deliberate.
4 right on the part Of the legislature to
instruct senators IN congress, has been assu-
med aad exercised by most of our legisla.
lures. Ii IS defended on the gfound that the
action Of the eg:slature, in all eases, should
be true reflection of the popular WILL and
on tie ground that The right of instruction
necessarily attaches as al incident to the re-
lation oi constituent and representative. And.
however by some il may be regarded as
successful intei polation on ;he text Of Amer
can constitutional law, all will admit, lhat
it is now 100 firmly fixed 10 be shaken But
from whatever source tie right NAV have
been derived, or on whatever grounds it
IS delenSlble, II is the exercise OF power bv
the people, neither according to the forms.
Of the constitution, nor by virtue Of its pro-
visions. Bot if the assumption be tenable
that the people ofthe state can, onlv-throuoh
the forms OF their constitution, express u dis.
sent from. or raslfy the act of their govern
ment. in matters which affect the people as
state or that the people In their aegre-
gate charaster, aud apart from the govern
ment. are Incapable OF forming -en opinion,
or of concurring in any design; neither
could the encroaehments Of the federal or
state governments be resisted and the RICH,
of lnstructing your repre- sentatIyes, a privi-
lege deemed by you not only Of great inpor-
tance to the private interests of the citizen,
would etectuallg be denied as a right or ex-
ist, If tolerated as an eneroachmepi on tie
5ndepeadcnce ofthe representative.
We submit to YOU, whether the obserya-
tions ABOVE made do not show that the areu-
ment Of our opponents IS not sustained by
facts OF the history OF our republican insti
tutions and that the theory which supports
it, is despotc in lis tendencies,
But we do not desire to be understood to
assert, that IN cases where the legislative
department has, in violation OF the constitn
ton, attempted 10 establish more muDlci-
pal rule, to operate exclusively between
the citizens, that a recognition or Tatlhca
lion by the people OF the state, unless made
in conventions, would so far validate
thus adopted, as to preclude the judiciary
from delaring it void
There is an obvious distinction between
law which would bind The people ofa state
IN their sovereign capacity, or IN their exter
nal OF international relations, and law
which has no extra territorial operation,
bat ehira imposes an obligation binding
merely between the individuals composing
the community We viii endeayor TO IL
lustgate this position.
BIZ the constitution, the citizens who are
parties to the soeial compact, agreed with
each other and with the government thereby
established, that none OF its acts performed
ia violation ofthe constitution should be val
Id Hence IN case of the passage OF an acl
b. the legislature in opposition to the con-
stitu;ion, and which must therefore be void,
intended to affect merely the private rela-
ti7ns OF individuals, an approval or ratilica-
ION by the peiopie, in their primary assem-
blies, or through The ballot box. would not
confer upon II validity The reason is
manifest; because II it could, either an ap-
proval or ratification in that way would, in
fact be distinct act Of Legislation, and a yIo-
ation not only Of the express terms Of the
constitution. but OF the snliit Of the social
contract l. IS not pfttented hat such an
act would be less binding on the state in
her sovereign character. But where an
act ofthe legislature has been passed which
as in the case under consideration, imposes
an obligation on the state, In her sovereign
character, and does not establish mere mu-
nicipai rule, TO operate exclusively between
the citizens, we apprehend The same reason
does not apply. For, although the consti-
tuition would render the government, by such
an act. incapable of imposing an obligation
on the state, 1t could not preclude her, who,
j aS = env-rasun "a moi onlv in1ppapdant ~