{"character_count": 3161, "word_count": 560, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9805999994277954], "ccnet_perplexity": [1832.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
representative IS an agent, or deputy, whose duty 1t is to carry out the wishes, to iulfll the desires of his employer; and so far as he regards those wishes, and no farther, is he an agent How singular the idea, which is but too common, that all agent is not responsible to him for whom he acts, if it be possible, in principle, to distinguish between the two; and how strange the excuse, that, being bet ter qualified than his employer to judge ofa given course, he will pursue that course con trary 10 his express directions. There is, indeed, much philosophy ill the homely max i'm: C must obey orders, if break own ers.o So of a representative in Congress- He Is chosen to do for his constituents what they cannot conveniently do for themselves, and so far as he understands their wishes, he ought strictly to comply with them. He should have no will of his own which is in- dependent of that of his constituents; as the very moment he has, if expressed in action, he ceases to be a representative. If he can not conscientiousy obey, he is bound at once 10 resign.

 It is objected, that this makes him mere automaton. Not at all He does not profess to act for himself, but for others and so long as he acts conscientiously, he cannot be re- garded as an automaton. It is also objected, that the admission of the right of instruction would tend 10 confusion. So 1t might, occa- slonally. There is no good unmiXed with possible evil. But would it be likely to :? What is the history of parties Is there, ordinarily, decided change within the pe- riod composing the legislative term of re- +[,o oP not, representative is not likely to be in- stEueted, as, holding office at the will of his party, he generally anticipates their wishes, and is ever ready to obey their will; some times even at the hazard of the common good.

 It is objected, too, that representative is chosen to represent not merely his eonstitli- ents but the whole country; and that, being intimately associated with delegates from all parts of the latter, he is better qualified than his immediate constituents can be, to judge what is for the best good of the whole coun- try. This objection is plausible, and, sepa- rate from the principle involved, is admissi- ble. But what does 1t show? Not that re- presentation is a principle, and that, there fore, representative is not bound to obey ; but 1t simply furnishes an illustration of the eapediencg of representation, without in the least affecting the right of the doctrine of in- structon.

 Again, it is objected, that representative is selected for his superior fitness for the sta tion. He has more wisdom, and better un- defstands the genius of our institutions, than his constituents. Is not this idea frivolous ? He may, indeed, be better qualified than any other single individual, for the discharge of the high trusts committed to him; but that his wisdom exeels the combined wisdom of his constituents, is paying but poor com Plinent to the intelligence of this nation; and, were 1t true, would itself furnish evil dence of the entire incompatibility of our form of government with such deplorable g- norance of the people.