The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. II., No. 10, September, 1836Various
General
The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. II., No. 10, September, 1836
Various
American literature -- 19th century -- Periodicals
mischiefs of ejection sink to insignificance compared with the
mischiefs of continuance. Upon the constitutional point he ought to
presume the united wisdom of the two branches of his Legislature to be
more capable of judging than his own; and if he has committed his
honor, he ought to suffer, and not his constituents. In either case,
the resignation is the privilege {629} of the Senator, to enable him
to remove himself from a delicate situation. It is not produced by the
Legislature—it is no punishment—it is not a legal or official
ejectment from office—it carries no stigma with it—it is an obedience
to the requisitions of delicacy, and lofty honor, and not a compliance
with the mandates of the Legislature. We instruct, and propriety,
reason, and authority say _he_ must obey; but justice says he may
resign, if he cannot obey with honor. As well might it be objected to
us, that we do not compel a Senator never to resign. Resignations for
instructions no more shorten the term than other resignations; and as
long as any are allowed, we must allow those made to save the
conscience or honor. This is the only refuge; for duty requires
obedience, and it would be dishonorable to disobey. The Senator, who
is called a representative, has no right to save his conscience at the
expense of his constituents, and throw their whole political weight in
a direction precisely opposite to their express wishes. Instructions
then neither vary or shorten the term of office. If they are obeyed,
what harm is done? The will of the constituent has prevailed, as it
ought to do, by the theory of our government. What if he resigns? The
State is without a Senator, by his voluntary act to save his honor,
and his successor perhaps carries into effect the will of his
constituents. Where is the breach in the constitution? The same result
might happen, because the Senator did not like his colleagues, or was
in ill health, or embarrassed in circumstances, or accepted a federal
office, or wished to travel, or engage in agriculture. If it is
unconstitutional for a Senator to resign because his conscience or
honor require him not to obey instructions, then is it equally
unconstitutional for him to resign for any of these reasons, or any
others which might occur to him. His failure to resign, or the want of
power to compel resignation, cannot absolve him from the duty of
obedience.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account