The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1921-08-21
CONSCIENCE OR CONSTITUENCY?

CONSCIENCE OR CONSTITUENCY?
III members Of congress would but vote
their convictions in stead Of dstortlng their de.
clsons TO what they conceive viii please their
constituents present problems would bo solved
much more easily aud wisely ana the patornal-
isic trend Of government would never have
taken place"
Thus writes a critic ot congressional action.
tho writer himself being member Of congress.
And thus is raised the ssuc. which should guide
tho decisions Of the legislative representative.
his conscience or tho expressed viii Of his con
eItuents?
II you answer hs constituents. ana that IL tho
obvious answer you encounter this difficulty
Suppose what appears TO be the voice OF hi,
constituents should demand vicious class lcgis.
1ation? or paipablc unconstitutional legislation
along other linca? or even that he vote to
withdraw his state from the union All OF
these cases have arisen. Is II not manifest that
he violates his oath by his vote? Because his
oath obligatcs him not to his constituency but
to the constitution.
on the other hand, IL the answer he that his
conscience must control, then is It made
easy for the legislative representative to vote
for and with his personal interests. improper
though such vote may be when measured by
tho genuine neccssltlcS OF hlH constituents or
the provisions of tho constitution?
The nature of his oath fixes the duty Of tho
public agent There can he no controversy on
that point And the only means OF determining
precisely what the action OF the agent must be
in respect OF that oath Is the conscience OF the
agent. Now the oath of n legislative represen-
tative contains reference to the wishes Of
his constituents except as those wishes may he
implied In tho laws of the land and the oonsti'
tuition OF the state. Therefore the obligatory
bond OF the agent, taken by the people In tho
name OF the state. Is that ne will uphold and
defend the constitution, because the constitu-
ton Is sovereign. even above the individual
citizen. notwithstanding the fact that the citl-
zen may. through the observance OF proper
form. change tho constitution.
1t follows. of course. that the citizen himself
may not properly demand anything OF his legiH-
iative agent which is contrary to the constitu-
tion and must rely on the conscientious judg,
ment Of that agent re- to what Is or Is not re-
pugnant to the constitution. Thus we arrive at
the conclusion that the true attitude Of the lcgi'.
lative agent is to be guided by the obligations
of his oath as defined by good conscience; be-
cause in so doing he is likewise following the
wishes OF his constituents rs far as his constt".
ents have any legal right 10 control him.
Tho absurdity OF holding that a legislative
agent should be instantly responsive to the
wishes Of his constituents is apparent when tho
impoasibntty of knowing what those wishes are
is taken into consideration. Certain special in
tcrests meeting and rcsolutng on a given sub
ioct cannot be construed as interpreting thu
voice Of a congregational constituency. Because
no general notice has been given of the place
of Meeting and only an insIgnificant faction IN
been permitted TO express itself
,,o,.. .,,,, ,,s ,,,,, tho ,rac,tco ana he.