MR. TYLER admits our principle and says he would obey, but for constitutional scruples, but having these he resigns. This seems a simple, intelligible, respectful course; but Judge H. “whose political metaphysics surpass my understanding,” loses himself in a labyrinth of doubt and obscurity. He says in effect “I will do as I please,” makes the matter simple enough. All {692} despotisms are simple, and simple people submit to them. “Obey or resign” is not too complicated to be understood by men as enlightened as senators ought to be, and seems more suitable language between masters and servants. He creates a new difficulty by making senators not enlightened, but simpletons, groping in the dark in each case, to know whether they must obey _or_ resign. All such should resign at once, for Judge H.'s theory is based only upon exalted wisdom, and cannot save him, if he is a “simple novitiate” seeking a _rule_ to guide him in a plain duty. He would be a “simple novitiate” indeed who would inquire “what legislature he should obey.” Common sense would seem to say the question only arises upon the instructions actually before him in all cases, and he could not obey a legislature which did not instruct, or instructed last year, or forty years ago, or may instruct forty years or a month hence. I cannot see where the Judge finds authority for his “playing for the rubber, or taking his chance for a third heat,” (as he facetiously remarks, “_especially in Virginia_,”) unless the senator has second sight, and then the argument proves that he ought to obey, not only promptly, but _a year in advance_. But it is better to _count out with honors_ and gain _his points_, than run the risque of losing by this _odd trick_. The strangest perversion runs through these comments upon Mr. Tyler's course. The firmness before required is forgotten. The senator must disobey if he finds great men against his constituents—the opinion of a JAMES MADISON, or even a disappointed minority of his own constituents, if _in his opinion_, possessed of more intellect than the majority, may be obeyed in preference. A majority of constituents seems to be the only body, to be utterly disregarded. But the leaning on authority is not yet sufficient; we are to be defeated not only by _concurrence_, but _difference of opinion_, as the following paragraph proves: