national majority, under which rebellious agency pretends
to take sanctuary, should give contrary instructions, the
chastening provision of our policy, according to the idea of
an aggregate right of instruction, would have been an alternative between committing a crime with impunity, or suffering a punishment for patriotism. The aggregate majority would hold a right without the remedy, and the district the remedy without a right. But it is overlooked that
majorities and their rights are creatures of social compact,
and not endowed by nature with political power. They are
compounded of men, excluding women; of adults, excluding minors; of landholders, excluding those who have no
land; and in a multitude of ways. However compounded,
they are a social being, and no social duty can accrue to any
majority, but to one established by social compact, because
no other majority exists possessed of any political rights.
Admitting then the right of the majority to instruct, the
right accrues to the social majority, and wherever that exists in the form of sections or districts, the mode by which
it can exercise its power, must be through the form in
which it exists. Thus only can it elect, and thus only instruct. Any other species of instruction, instead of a social, would be revolutionary or rebellious. An appeal by the
representative from the organized majority, to an ideal disorganized majority, is therefore a violation of the duties of
agency. And instruction from such a source, would be contrary to the social compact; inconsistent with the moral relation between agency and duty, and between crime and punishment; aud as impracticable as aggregate election. It is, however, necessary to consider, whether a right in the social
majority to instruct its agents through its moral, covenanted
and practicable channels, is necessary to preserve the sovereignty of the people, or of a republican form of government.
Out of the natural right of self preservation, sovereignties of all forms have collected the same right, as inherent without the formality of a positive stipulation. There never has occurred the least occasion to convince an aristo-
