[THE legislature of North Carolina, elected in 1838, contained
a majority of whig members, and that state being at the time
represented in the senate of the United States by Messrs.
Brown and Strange, both of whom were supporters of Van Buren’s
administration, the legislature passed sundry resolutions,
disapproving of the policy of the administration, and condemning
the action of the senate in expunging the resolution against
general Jackson at the close of his administration. In reply
to the North Carolina senators, who gave their reasons for not
obeying these instructions, Mr. Clay made the following remarks,
giving his views of the doctrine of instruction, and of the
peculiar case under consideration.]
I COULD have wished that some other senator had thought proper to
make the few observations that are called for, by the present occasion;
but as no one has risen for that purpose, and as the legislature of
North Carolina are on this subject here unrepresented, and as the
propositions embraced in these resolutions have not a single sentiment
with which I do not most heartily concur, I trust that I shall be
indulged, when making a few remarks on this occasion; and I assure the
senator from North Carolina last up, that nothing is further from my
purpose than to do any injustice to him or his colleague; and I think
it was a little unkind and gratuitous in him, to say that he never
expected to receive justice from his opponents.
The legislature of North Carolina have been charged by gentlemen,
with using disrespectful language in these resolutions. But if their
language was indecorous, the rules of the senate prescribe it as their
course of duty, that the resolutions ought not to have been submitted;
for, as I understand those rules, it is the duty of every member,
when he has a memorial or resolution to be presented, to see that
they are couched in the proper language. But in what respect are these
resolutions disrespectful to the senate, as I understood was charged by
both the senators from North Carolina?
[Mr. Strange said he made no allusion to disrespectful language.]
At least, Mr. Clay understood the other senator, (Mr. Brown,) to say
that one of the resolutions was disrespectful to the senate.
[Mr. Brown said he so spake of one of the resolutions,
but he thought it his duty to his state to present them,
notwithstanding, and in no possible contingency could he have
refused to present them.]
Mr. Clay said, I so understood the senator, that one of the
resolutions was disrespectful; but he now says, that, in deference
to his legislature, he still ought to present them. Sir, if there was
indecorum in the language, I repeat, that it was his duty, under the
rules of the senate, not to present the resolutions at all.
[Mr. Brown said there was a very marked distinction between
the legislature of a sovereign state and individuals, on this
subject.]
I am not aware, said Mr. Clay, that there is any such distinction
expressed in the rules; and if the legislature of a state uses
disrespectful language, it is no more to be received than if it were
from a private citizen. But let that pass.
In what respect are these resolutions disrespectful? The senate, two or
three years ago, adopted a resolution, by a vote of the majority of the
body, which resolution was afterwards ordered to be expunged from the
journal; and now the legislature of North Carolina say that it was, in
their opinion, an act of party servility to the national executive then
in power. Now let us suppose that either branch of congress had really
been guilty of an act of party servility to the executive, have not
legislative bodies a right to express it, in this or any other country?
But whether that act was one of servility or not, is a question on
which history will in due time pass its decision. But as I have said on
every occasion, here and elsewhere, it was in my opinion derogatory to
this body, and history will pronounce upon it the severest censure.
But the senators from North Carolina have both declared, that they
would have obeyed these resolutions, if they had been mandatory in
their language, instead of their being a simple expression of the will
of their legislature. But let us examine the nature and extent of this
apology. What is the basis, and what the principle of the doctrine
of instruction? Sir, to a certain extent, I have always believed in
this doctrine, and have been ever ready to conform to it. But I hold
to the doctrine as it stood in 1798; that in general, on questions of
expediency, the representative should conform to his instructions, and
so gratify the wishes, and obey the will, of his constituents, though
on questions of constitutionality his course might be different; and,
therefore, when the senator last up, (Mr. Strange,) declared that
he would rather submit to a certain operation, than to give his vote
declaring that there had been a violation of the constitution, I felt
some alarm, lest the true doctrine of instruction should itself be
subverted. And it did not appear to occur to him at the time, that
there was another alternative besides obeying――that is, to resign.
And what is the doctrine of instructions, as it is held by all? Is it
not that we are to conform to the wishes of our constituents? Is it not
that we are to act, not in our own, but in a delegated character? And
will any who stand here, pretend, that whenever they know the wishes or
will of those who sent them here, they are not bound to conform to that
will entirely? Is it not the doctrine, that we are nothing more than
the mirror to reflect the will of those who called us to our dignified
office? That is the view which I take of the doctrine of instructions.
And I now ask, is any peculiar language necessary, other than that
by which the will of our constituents may be understood and carried
out? is there but one word that will answer――no other word, but the
word _instruct_? Is there no other language tantamount to that? If
the legislature simply express their will, is that not equivalent
to the word _instruct_? Nay, more, is it not more respectful to
those receiving the instructions, to avoid, than to use the word
_instructions_? Infinitely more so; and I am more ready to comply with
the wishes of any one, if he speaks to me in a courteous and polite
manner, than if he made use of mandatory language. Sir, I say to my
man Charles, please to do so and so, and he does it instantly, and with
much more pleasure, than if I was more peremptory. Suppose I should
say, Charles, I instruct you; he would think it very curious language;
but if I say, I would be obliged to you for my shoes or boots, he goes
down and brings them as quick as possible. I assure the senators it is
no purpose of mine to treat them with the smallest disrespect; on the
contrary, I sympathize with them, and regret extremely that they cannot
conform to these resolutions, coming from so respectable a source as
the legislature of North Carolina. I should have been extremely happy
if they could have conformed, and I believe the constitution of North
Carolina expressly provides for and secures the right of instruction,
requiring the representatives of the people to conform and obey. And
it appears to me, that if the legislature have the right, and choose
to give instructions, it is no matter in what words or language those
instructions are given; and I should feel myself bound to conform to
their wishes, thus communicated. But if the argument of the senior
senator, (Mr. Brown,) from North Carolina, is correct, even if the most
positive language were used, as has been done on two several occasions,
and in my judgment now, I suppose, if that were the case, he would not
feel bound to obey the will of the legislature, in opposition to what
he might be pleased to consider the will of the people, which he would
regard as the paramount authority. But on one subject, at least, these
resolutions speak in decisive language, on which I have not heard that
the people of North Carolina have expressed any prior sentiment adverse
to the course now intimated, and that is, the great subject of the
public lands, which has been under laborious discussion here, for
the last eight or ten days; and I confess, I regretted that these
resolutions by the legislature of North Carolina were not here, that
we might have had the benefit of the knowledge of their wishes, during
the last week, when the debate on the subject was in progress. But I
am glad they have come in before the passage of the bill, and I hope,
at least, on the subject of the public lands, we shall have the vote
of the senators from North Carolina, in opposition to the wild schemes
which have been denounced by the resolutions of the legislature laid
before us.
Mr. Clay said he was exceedingly sorry he had been instrumental in
throwing the senator from North Carolina into such a rage, and nothing,
he said, was further from his purpose. But if he had intimated that the
legislature of North Carolina had meanly prevaricated, and had made a
fraudulent use of the doctrine of instructions――
[_Mr. Brown._ I did not say so, my remarks were general.]
If his remarks were general, I do not see that they can have any
specific application, except to this case.
[Mr. Brown, again attempting to speak, was prevented by cries of
order.]
Mr. Clay said it was far from his purpose to assume jurisdiction in
this case, or any authority over the senator, or his colleague; and
he could not more protest against it, than Mr. Clay was unwilling
to exercise it. But what was the state of the case? The senators,
on presenting the resolutions of their legislature, had both made
speeches addressed to this body, and had spoken of the nature of
their instructions, and of the degree of authority and of duty which
belonged to them; all this they had done to a body of which Mr. Clay
was a member. If they had confined their thoughts on the subject to
themselves, or had contented themselves with simply presenting the
resolutions, Mr. Clay would have seen no occasion for any remarks on
his part. But when they expressed their views of the extent of the
obligations due to their instructions, on subjects in which the whole
country was interested, Mr. Clay would ask if it was not proper for
him to speak in reply? Mr. Clay had spoken with reluctance, and would
have been glad if another gentleman had taken it upon him; but as the
question was about to be put, and as North Carolina was unrepresented,
he had ventured to make a few remarks, and in doing so, had called
forth a most violent philippic against him personally. Mr. Clay had not
felt the slightest emotion while this was going on; but as the senator
had protested against Mr. Clay’s jurisdiction in the case, he should
have recollected that he was assuming just such a jurisdiction over
Mr. Clay; and that it was quite as exceptionable for the senator
to arraign Mr. Clay’s course, as for him to arraign that of the
senator’s. But Mr. Clay would say nothing in regard to himself, since
his colleague, (Mr. Crittenden, on the land bill,) had disclosed the
impossibility of making any adequate defence for Mr. Clay on this
floor; and he therefore thought it vain for him to attempt to defend
himself. But on this point the people of the country must judge; and
if they condemned the course of policy, in regard to the public lands,
which Mr. Clay advocated, and which had placed this country fifty years
in advance of what it would otherwise have been, Mr. Clay could only
submit; and if, as the senior senator from North Carolina had stated,
this question had shaken the pillars of this union, it would be right
to give some credit to Mr. Clay, that he had endeavored to compose that
controversy, by the bill which he had introduced several years ago.
On the declaration of Mr. Strange, that he generally regarded
Mr. Clay’s course as one to be avoided, Mr. Clay remarked, that it was
not his course of conduct towards Mr. Strange, or any other gentleman;
but when they presented any measure, he was ever ready to give it his
consideration; and he would not decide against him, merely because he
proposed the measure, but he would examine it, and if the ground was
good, he would act with him, as Mr. Strange was about to do with Mr.
Clay on graduation.
Mr. Clay again disclaimed any intention to interfere between the
senators from North Carolina and their legislature, and expressed
the pleasure which these resolutions gave him, especially on account
of their reference to the public lands; and he further justified the
remarks which he had now made, and especially by the apprehension which
he felt, that the true doctrine of instructions, as stated in 1798, was
now in danger of being subverted and destroyed.