Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-01-13
POPULAR INSTRUCTION.

To the Union an6 American:
Several elaborate editorials have recently
appeared in your paper, denying the right
Of the people to instruct their representa-
tyes Maintaining that the principle is
wrong. For such political heresy to ap-
pear editorially in the central Democratic
paper Of the State, from which should
come naught but cardinal democratic prin-
ciples, is certainly a surprise to all Ortho-
dox Democrats who have seen the same.
The position assumed, l understand TO
be that advocated BY Mr.. Adams, when, in
one Of his messages to Congress, he said:
"The strong arm Of the representative
should not be palsied by the will of the
people That sentiment of Mr.. Adams,
so clearly at war with every principle Of a
free government, has never been endorsed
by any political party Of the -country-cer-
tainly not by the Democratic party.
The right of the people to instruct their
Representatives and the duty Of the Rep
resentatives to obey the expressed will Of
the people, was, in the Olden time, con-
eeded by both Wings and Democrats, and,
to-day, is surely a cardinal doctrine of the
Democratic party, as it is a fundamental
principle in the structure Of our Govern
ment, State and Federal.
The principle is not new. Did not a
Democratic Legislature, about the year
1S4O, instruct Ephriam II. Foster, a Wing
Senator, 10 either support certain measures
or resign his seat in the United States SEN
ate? And when Mr.. Foster felt that he
could not support the measure, did he not
resign his seat? In that do we not behold
the recognition Of the right, by the two
great political parties of that day, Of those
electing the Representative to instruct him?
Yet, sirs, you say, at is a dangerous prin-
ciple and may afford a perniciOus prece-
dent, for the people to instruct their Rep
resentatives, whom they have elected, con-
corning the election Of an United States
Senator. Can the exercise Of the will of
the people, through Representatives, be
fraught with danger in democracy gov
eminent built upon and resting upon the
will Of the people? Manifestly, the propO-
sition is preposterous.
And is there no precedent to be found
where Senatorial candidates have canvassed
3 State in order to create a public senti-
ment in favor of certain measures and in
IavOr Of themselves as the advocates Of
hose measures? Did not Abraham Lin
coin and Stephen A. Douglas canvass the
State Of Illinois, each TO secure his election
10 the United States Senate? What evil
,ame Of that "pernicious precedent" Of get
ling an expression Of the will Of the people
and Of thelegislators, then elected, Obeying
he will Of the people? Did it not put in |
% the United States Senate one Of the |
greatest Of the then living statesmen
There is no principle in our government |
there can be none in free government |
hat ignores the will of the people. Ours |
S a government Of the people, by the /
,eople, resting on the oil Of the people. /
Their viii, to be exercised within the con-
titutional limits by them assigned, is the
OVereign power-a power never delegated
ut expressly reserved, in proof Of which
Ook to article l, section . Of our Declare
ion Of Rights and read: s'Thecitizens have
right in a peaceable manner to assemble
Ogether for their common good, to instruct
heir representatives, and to apply to those
invested with the powers Of government
)r redress Of grievances or other proper
urpOses, by address or remonstrance.
The right TO instruct is, We see, in the
rgsnic law Of our State government,
rosdly asserted and expressly reserved. II
J, indeed, an inalienable right, for when
and the will Of the people dis
sgsIded free government is at an end.
Our system Of government is a pure
democracy in so far that the will Of the
eople is supreme; but our people are too
to act in mass on all, or most,
uestiOns, and hence, that will must neces-
srily be exercised through representatives,
no are but agents to do the will Of the
rincipals - the few acting for the many,
hose duty il is TO do just what the whole
eOple would do in their collective capacity |
ere it practical for them to meet in a mass.
nd whenever a representative fails to ex-
cute the will Of his people, no matter how
expressed by them, no difference how as
ertained by him, he represents not them, |
Ut himself only. In diSTegarding their |
i'll be arrogates to himself the right to |
ictate to them, and is no longer their ser
ant, but assumes to be their lord. Thus |
le servant becomes greater than the mas
T, the subject greater than the sOvereigns,
nd be who IS sent greater than those who
mt him-an inversion, squarely, Of our |
7stem Of government.
Such is the principle taught by this new
aparture from the old landmarks Of Dem
ratio faith and from the pOle-star Of pop
lar government. II is a strange doctrine
aught with evil. Pause and consider
re people are yet power in the govern
lent. Their sovereign will must not be |
sisted or else it will be exercised to the
-ushing Of parties and to the rending Of
ATTY affiliations like threads Of gossamer.
But we are told that ain France, in the
tier days Of Louis Philippe, a member Of
le Assembly was denied his seat because
e had made a contract chad pledged him
I'D TO support particular measure,
C."
Are we 10 understand the principle, |
iOpted by the French Assembly, as being
ldOTsed by the UNION AND AMERICAN? |
Sirs, would you have that principle OBJ |
IN in our Government? Would you have |
I the members Of our General Assembly,
no, in their canvass before the people, |
lodged themselves to the support of Ger |
lin measures, declared incompetent, by
,ason of such pledges, and expelled? Such |
the precedent cited, such the authority |
noted. A favored subject Of King Phil
,pe, where the heel Of the tyrant was upon |
le neck of the masses, We might expect !
advocate such political tenet, for it full |
accords with the theory Of a mOnarchical
,rm of government in which the people,
-actically, have no voice and are not free
len, but it is astounding to hear such |
rinciple seriously advocated, and by a
democratic paper too, in the "land Of lib
ty," and in a government Of the people.
The UNION AND AMERICAN cites still
lore mORGrchicdl authority, for, it says |
nat the question first arose in the British !
arliament in 1911 and was decided against
he right of the people to instruct their
As the theory Of the |
ritish Government, with a King at its
cad, antagonizes directly the theory Of our !
epUblscan Government where the sOver-
gnty is in the people and not in a King,
e are hardly willing for the British to de-
.unIne principles Of government for us.
strikes us that in 1T76 there was differ
nee in principle on this point, and that the
merican people then deRied the right Of ! ,
he British Parliament to settle for them
IestiOns Of government. This very princi-
e entered largely into the cause Of the
of ITO.
The UNION AND AMERICAN, strangely
nd of appealing 10 precedents and in ,
Orsing sentiments peculiar to Kingly Gov
nments, tells us that "Burke in his Bris-
j speech laid down the true doctrine on
he relations Of the repres entative to his
,nstituents." Whilst Mr.. Burke denied
le right Of constituents to absolutely bind
leir representatives by instructions vet, in
lat Bristol speech, he did say: SIT ought
be the happiness and glory Of a repre-
.DtatiVe to live in the strictnst uuiOn the | /