The copper country evening news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 18??-1907, 1898-02-07
OLD PROBLEM REVIVED
Shall Congressman Consult Opin-
ions of Their Constituents
OR VOTE THEIR OWN CONvIcTIOssi

The Teller ResOlutfon Placed Many KEEP
rsssntstivss and Senators In IN Unpisas-
ant Dilemms-Alexandsr stephens and
Henry Clay Deaed Their Constituents.
wAsHiNGroS. Feb. = Especial. RE
cent events In congress have served to
bring to the front a new one Of the un-
solved problems of public life. 1t Is this:
Is a senator or representative In duty bound
to vote according to the wishes of his con-
stituents or is he free to vote according
to his own convictions? This is an old,
old question In the public life Of our re-
public, and It cannot be said ever to have
been settled. The precedents are found on
both sides Of the question, and no rule has
been set up by weight Of authority. The
| Teller resolution, which was carried In the
| senate by a majority of 10 and defeated in
the house by majority of 90, was most
unpleasant question for good many sem
ators and representatives to face. Both sill
| Yer men and gold men found themselves
confronted with the dilemma whether they
| should vote according to their personal
wishes and beliefs or in accordance with
the desires of their people at home. Some
solved the problem In one way and some
In another, and not few of those who
solved it by exercising their power to vote
as they pleased are now hearing from their
constituents.
Some OF the best men we have ever had
In public life have assumed that their func-
tion In Washington was Of purely repre-
sentative character They have held in
allegiance their personal opinions and have
sought only to voice the will of their con.
stituents. They have defended themselves
with the argument that the foundation
principle of the American government is
majority rule, and that next to this comes
popular representation. 1t was the great
idea of the founders of the republic to form
system in which the people could speak
through their chosen representatives, and
majority of the people could always be
sure of controlling the destinies of the
country. In line with this argument was
the thought that it manifestly became the
plain duty of the senator or representative,
II there was no doubt as to the wishes of
those who had sent him to Washington, to
voice their wishes. If there was doubt If
his people appeared to be about equally
divided, of course he was free to act as his
conscience or his convictions dictated.
Exceptions to the Rule.
But there have been many noticeable ex-
ceptions to this rule. In fact, the weight
Of authority, especially in later years, APP
pears to be In favor of permitting the SEN
ator or representative to act as an inde-
pendent agent. II he misrepresents his
people, he must take the consequences
They have recourse In defeating him when
he comes up again for reelection. Those
who contend for this view Of the case COM
plain that any other solution of the prob
lem would rob our statesmen of .individu-
ality and lead to their degeneration. In
stead Of independent, thinking, studying
men, they would become mere automatons,
mere registers Of the will Of their people
at home. They would grow cowardly and
lazy. They would fail to inform them
selves as to what was wisest and best and
would simply await instructions from
their states or districts. Such an abandon
ment Of the proper prerogative of public !
service, 1t Is argued, would be great mis-
fortune to the country and fatal blow to |
the usefulness and brilliancy of its public !
life. Instead of statesmen here in Wash !
ington we should have mere clerks.
Alexander Stephens, who was one of the |
most brilliant men we have had in the |
public life of this capitol, was once in
structed by the people of his district to |
vote in a certain way. He defied them. |
II was selected as your representative,
he said to them when he went home after |
the adjournment of congress, because |
you thought me the best man for the place. |
You had confidence in my wisdom and |
ability. You knew / had had experience, |
and that could be depended upon to know |
what was best for you and for the country |
at large. i am free to confess that this is |
true. What have done was for your good, |
and was right In doing it," This and
much more to the same effect he said to |
them, and the result of his frankness and |
self confidence and powers of persuasion !
was that the people forgave him for hav-
ing disobeyed them and sent him back to |
The great Henry Clay was once instruct
ed by the legislature of his beloved Ken
lucky how to vote on certain question.
Mr. Clay had then been long time in
public life, and he keenly resented this
command from his constituents. Like
Alexander Stephens he thought he knew
better what was good for the country than
his people at home and he frankly said SO.
When the resolutions of the Kentucky leg
islature were placed before him, he drew
himself up and said to the spokesman who
had delivered them:
uchy tho iibHu VI tuc luciilDcrb VI |
the legislature of my state to instruct NE
as to the performance of my duties here in
Washington shall go home, sir, and
give them some instruction as to the proper
performance Of their own duties.'
An Ancient Precedent.
Some Of the greatest men of history have
explicitly denied the right of state legisla-
lures to instruct them. Webster took this
ground, and so did Calhoun. Cass of
and Bell of Tennessee and Willie
of North Carolina wcrc others.
Nearly century ago this question came
up, and am therefore right i'm saying it
Is not o new problem to our public scrv-
ants. The legislature of Virginia tried to
instruct William b. Giles, senator and
near friend of jefferson and Madison, as to
how he should vote. He refused to obey
A notable example of the same sort was
when the legislature of Mississippi only
few years ago instructed the late Senator
Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar to
vote for free coinage bill He refused,
and In refusing gave great pleasure to his
special friend, President Cleveland, who