Lynchburg Virginian

MR. LEIGH.—Strive, but hear!

Speculation as to the course of Mr. Leigh is at an end. His powerful letter, which we lay before our readers this morning, fully sustains the lofty position which he has assumed, that "he ought not" either to resign his seat, or to violate the constitution, by voting for the mutilation of the Senate Journals. Obedience, indeed, was never expected or desired, by those who gave the instruction. They cared not a fig for the consummation of their avowed purpose—which, as every man of common sense knows, in despite of all assertions to the contrary, was only used to veil the real design of the Expungers—which was nothing more nor less than to compel Mr. Leigh to resign, that his office might be given to one of themselves. And it behooves the people to consider well when the inestimable and sacred Right of Instruction shall be prostituted to such a base purpose by a dominant faction—whether one of the highest attributes of sovereignty shall be perverted from its true and legitimate design, to serve the purposes of party malignity. If they shall justly view this outrageous attempt to desecrate the Right of Instruction, the Right itself must soon sink under a load of obloquy, and fall into disuse, as the fountain of innumerable mischiefs—the source of constant and imminent peril to the stability of our free institutions. They are the only enemies of the Right of Instruction, indeed, who, by this glaring perversion and prostitution of it to unholy and factious purposes, furnish its enemies with their strongest arguments against it.

But Mr. Leigh may rest his justification on still higher ground, his enemies themselves being judges. The Richmond Enquirer admits, and of course no one of its party will deny, that the celebrated Report of 1812, drawn up by Mr. Leigh himself, vindicating the Right of Instruction, is the true creed of Virginia on that subject. Mr. Leigh and his friends are willing to subject his refusal to acquiesce in the commands of the present Legislature, to a comparison with the principles of that Report, and to stand or fall by the result. What says that Report? It expressly lays down these positions:

First. If a State instruct its Senator to give a vote plainly unconstitutional, the Senator is not bound to obey any such instruction.

Secondly. It is the inalienable right of the State Legislatures to instruct their Senators, and it is the bounden duty of the Senators to obey, provided the instructions require not the Senator to commit a violation of the constitution or an act of moral turpitude.

These are fundamental positions assumed in the Report of 1812; then deliberately sanctioned by the Virginia Legislature: and now cited by Mr. Ritchie as containing the true doctrine. It is only necessary then to ask, whether the Expunging instructions required Mr. Leigh to violate the constitution, or to commit an act of moral turpitude, in order to decide whether his refusal to obey is in accordance with the ancient opinions of Virginia? With his views, he would have been guilty of a double crime, had he obeyed their mandate—a crime which would have justly subjected him to the scorn of all men—even to that of the Expungers, who affect to think that he might have obeyed without dishonor.

We are told, however, that if he could not obey, he should have resigned—and that the positions which we have cited from the Report of 1812, do not touch that alternative. Be not too fast, gentlemen: this point, also, is strongly guarded, in that Report, which assumes, in relation to it, this position:

That if a State Legislature, under the influence either of corrupt, ambitious or tyrannical motives, with an evil intention or a pernicious object in view, give improper instructions to its Senators, such instructions ought to be resisted.

The only inquiry, here, is, were the Expunging instructions the offspring of such motives, and do they partake of such a character? Their friends may deny this; but who is to be the judge? Must not the Senator necessarily judge for himself? And does not the Report of 1812, by recognizing his right to resist improper instructions, recognize this right of judgment? Unquestionably. So that Mr. Leigh's refusal to resign as well as his refusal to obey, is sustained by the Report of 1812, which the Expungers themselves refer to as a correct exposition of Virginia principles, touching that subject.

spread error abroad relative to this subject. The truth is, there is a deep-rooted and wide-spread conviction that the right of the Legislature is not absolute, nor is the obedience of the Senator unconditional. If this were so, the people, instead of being the masters of the Legislature, would be its servants—With one voice the people might in vain endeavor to arrest the votes of their Senators, speaking as the instruments of a corrupt Legislature. Notwithstanding the inalienability and the indivisibility of sovereignty, with regard to which we were, some years ago, favored with such learned lectures, the Legislature would, for the time being, effectually wrest it from the people, and sit enthroned, in Richmond and "bought up" by the people's money, absolute control of which has been once usurped by the President, and may be again, by himself or his successors. a majority of the Legislature might instruct our Senators to vote for changing the tenure of the Presidential office from four to two years, or from two to life; and thus, by the people's money, effect a revolution in the Government, without the people's consent.

office from a term of years to a life estate—or to make him Dictator,—or to place the Imperial Crown upon his head;—and the people might meet with a unanimous and indignant voice demand that these instructions be disobeyed—and yet, according to the theory of the Republicans, the Legislature must be shorn of their power, and the will of the people disregarded! This is not the true theory, and it never was the voice of Virginia—and it never will be, until her people are prepared to convert their legal agents into masters—not only to attend to their domestic interests, but likewise to control the action of another set of agents, in a different department of our service. While every one will admit the right of a master to give orders to his servant, and the servant to obey—yet the right and the duty are always circumscribed, by law, as well as by the common sense of mankind, within certain fixed and unalterable limits—such as that the orders given by the master, if to murder his master's enemy, or set fire to his dwelling, or to commit any other crime, he is not only not bound to obey, but he is bound to resist. If he obey, the laws will punish him as severely as though he had acted from a voluntary impulse. And though his master may punish him for resisting his illegal orders, yet it would be on his part not the exercise of a right, but the usurpation of a despotic power, which would secure him the execration of mankind. So with the Legislature. They may give illegal and improper instructions to their Senators, for resistance to which they may punish them—but, when the temporary passions of the day shall have been succeeded by cool and dispassionate reflection, public opinion will affix to their own names the brand of eternal infamy.

MESSRS. TYLER AND LEIGH.

It is assumed, with great apparent exultation, that, inasmuch as our Senators came to different results with regard to their duty, one of them must be indefensible. Not so. That the reasoning of one of them is wrong, is certain; and in our humble opinion, it is that of Mr. Tyler. Nevertheless, entertaining such opinions, it was his duty to resign, as it was Mr. Leigh's—entertaining precisely opposite opinions, to hold on. It would have been more politic had Mr. Leigh resigned as well as Mr. Tyler: But the Whigs, unlike their antagonists, never consult policy, when great principles are at issue. It would have been advantageous, too, if both of the gentlemen had pursued the same course, whatever that was—but the Whigs wear no collars, and necessarily judge and act for themselves. Those who disapprove, or affect to dislike Mr. Leigh's course, should at least honor the firmness and intrepidity that dictated it. In these pliant times, even those virtues should not pass without appropriate commendation.

The Senate of Virginia refused to print Mr. Leigh's letter—a piece of little malignity, on a par with the intellectual calibre of a majority of its members. We do not wonder, however, that they quailed under its cutting rebukes.—The House of Delegates agreed to print it, although the self-important delegate from Goochland, Col. Joe Watkins, aided by the learned members from Roanoke, Russell and Scott, endeavored to prevent it! Who are these, to sit in judgment on Watkins & Co.? Goths and Vandals stuff—The ground of objection to printing was the allegation of Mr. Leigh that the true design of the instructions was to compel him to resign—which no man ever doubted, which has been openly proclaimed, and which was never denied until the Goochland Colonel took it upon himself to do so, and which will continue to be as cried and believed, in despite of denials from whatever quarter.

It will be seen that Mr. Leigh announces his intention of resigning his seat in the Senate on the meeting of the next Legislature. It did not require this annunciation to satisfy those who know the immense sacrifice which the acceptance of the office imposed upon him, that love of office has no share in his recent refusal to resign his seat.

The Enquirer "invokes the aid of the Legislature to re-assert their principles." With very few exceptions they hardly know the meaning of a principle. The Enquirer had better invoke them to go home and plant corn.

Mr. Ritchie is calling for "indignation meetings" throughout the State. They will be held, doubtless—some fuel for tar-room eloquence and court-bred patriotism can by no means be neglected. Mr. Leigh will hardly have a whole bone in his skin by the time that the modern Ciceros are done with him.

The Enquirer thinks that Mr. Leigh should have had his Report of 1832 expunged, before he wrote his late letter. Is the venerable editor blind? Does he not see that Mr. Leigh quotes that very Report, in order to sustain his present position, by exhibiting the entire accordance of one with the other?

Should the Spring elections result adversely to the Van Burenites, will William C. Rives resign his seat in the Senate? Not he. And therein will be furnished another illustration of the impropriety of Mr. Tyler's resignation and the correctness of Mr. Leigh's course—the will of the people being defeated by the instructions of the Legislature!