The weekly clarion., 1881-06-02

Buchanan, the illustrious Democratic
President, both in his example and in
, his words. He says: 1T (the right
. of instruction. has ever been funda-
mental article in the creed of the party
to which | am proud to belong" And
he cites Felix Grundy, the eminent
Senator from Tennessee. whose action
and speech on that occasion we're in
precise accord with Mr.. Buchanan's.
We know there are exceptions, but they
make the rule. Lewis Cass once re-
fused to obey his constituents, and soon
lost his seat. The Democrats pardoning
his deviation to the fact of his having
voted against a measure to which the
bulk of their party was opposed, nomi-
mated him for the Presidency, but he
never recovered his prestige. He was
beaten for the Presidency and lost his
place in the Senate. Mr. Benton, of
Missouri, violated instructions by voting
for the Wilmot ProviSo and was not re-
turned though for thirty years he had
been the idol of his party.
Here, too, is the testimony of one
in whom Mississippians, throughout the
long years of his grand and eventful
career, have trusted 1t was given as
he himself states when he was ''per-
sonally a disinterested observer" of
political events. In letter dated De-
cember 18th, 1873, JEFFERSON DAVIS
wrote:
In the compact of the Union il was pro-
vided that the Representatives of the States,
| their Senators, should be chosen by their
respective Legislatures. Those Legislatures
do in that connection, express the voice of
/ the State, and the Senator who accepts his
election by the Legislature as such express
| sion of the will of the State, would seem to
/ be estopped from contending at any future
! time, that the Legislature was not the
proper channel through which the State
should speak to him. Il has been the practice
| Of the Democracy, either to obey Instructions,
or to resig,. the Offce held from the people that
their constituents might, if they desired select
some one ELSE achO aooukd more truly represent
them. Nor has this been entirely confined to
the Democracy. The statesman Daniel
Webster), who has been called the eXpound-
er of the Constitution, when the wild waves
of abolitonism were beating against the bull
warks of the Constitution, and threatening
its subversion, in view Of the prospects Of
receiving instructions which he could not
conscientiously obey; said he hoped the
event might not arise, and clearly indicated,
though he did not express t. that in such
contingency he would vacate a seat he could
not consistently retain.
ToA L.
ocrat from infancy and was trained in
the faith of his party, and is deeply
versed in the science of government, and
disciple of Thomas Jefferson, said that
it had been the practice to recognize the
binding obligation of obedience to in
structions. He had shown his faith by
his works for he had again and again
obeyed the will of his constituents.
Here is another striking passage from
his letter above quoted:
In opposition to the right of the constit-
uency to instruct, | know of no argument
which deserves notice, unless it be that
which denies to the people the requisite /
amount of intelligence. If that be true |
the cornerstone of our temple is crushed,
and 1T were vain to attempt to prop the su-
perstructure. But is it true | hope not,
| think not. l repel the assumption of any
man that he has more wisdom than the ag- ;
gregate of his neighbors.
The Examiner undertakes to over
throw the principle of the right of in ,
struction by asserting that its applica-
ton would have secured the votes of
three or four Democratic Senators from {
as many Republican States at the late
extra session, and says that it ''antici-
pates" the answer of THE CLARION TO
this knock-down, ad capta,sdom argu-
ment CD that ''the circumstances and
conditions are reversed indulge these
instances and that Democratic Senators
Ire not expected to obey the orders of
Republican Legislatures. We beg the
Examiner to excuse Us from its assump-
ion that we would indulge in any such
ophistry. Oar doctrine is that the t
people have right to rule. 1t is an i
,ternal principle and its exercise does
lot depend upon whether this party or t
hat party is in power. If (to suppose the
cry improbable case propounded by the
1xaminer) the Democrats were to lose
fississippi, they would of course have
o pay the penalty and abide the c5nse- G
uenees of their loss. That's lat the
republicans had to do. So f..r as the L
pPPiication of tac' doctrine at the late 0
ession is concerned, while it might
ave lost to the Democrats the votes :,
AIMED by the Examiner, its observance a
ould have certainly gained them, the +
ote from Louisiana which Kellogg has -
cen casting in defiance Of the wishes of D
lat State.
There mayl be other instances if it
ere worth the search to fad them. Its m
Dplieation will gain them the vote of '
-ahone, the balance of his term if the fl
eople of Virginia choose as they are il
most sure to do, Democratic Legis- p
ture at the ensuing election, ana
.ovided Malone has not apostacised :,
ON the faith of the old State. Il gave n
lie vote of Bruce, Republican, to the =.
emocratic party on the silver bill. l.
We have not considered the question 7,
its relation to Mr.. Lamap,s vote =
| the silver bill, which the Ingenious
tiele in the Examiner is design Pii
to vindicate. The mere fortunes of ca
~ man, however distinguished and =. -,
Tented, are not to be weighed against hi
e maintenance of a principle involv-
g the very existence of representative
'vernment-or as the Virginia Legis- Pc
ture expressed it in their resolutions of an