REPUBLICAN PARTY. 



317 



as embracing the systems of the States, generalizes all 

 the sources of influence that have been described as 

 corporate, individual, and neighborhood opinion ; 

 stated iu other language, those include the influ- 

 ences of organized communities, the tendencies of 

 popular sentiment and opinion, and the phase of in- 

 fluence that arises from small and homogeneous dis- 

 tricts. Such composite structure of government is 

 undoubtedly demanded by the nature of popular gov- 

 ernment to modify the result of popular activities 

 without putting restraint upon them. Indeed it is 

 doubtful whether permanent stability may be at- 

 tained by popular institutions in large communities 

 independent of the federal principle that utilizes all 

 the sources of influence. 



In popular governments the choice of representa- 

 tives proceeds through some form of election, of 

 which there are in use two forms, one calling for an 

 oral expression of choice and the other in which 

 such choice is evidenced by writing or printing. 

 The former of these methods is in limited use and only 

 suited for small and homogeneous communities, while 

 the latter, under the name of voting by ballot, is 

 in most general use, principally for the reason that 

 it admits of the act of voting being performed 

 in a secret manner, thus exempting the voter 

 from responsibility other than to his own sense 

 of duty or interest. Such acts of election are 

 habitually supervised by official persons, whose state- 

 ments of the result are accredited as entitling the rep- 

 resentative certified by them as elected to claim his 

 seat in tin; leiri.-lative body to which he is elected. 

 The ultimate risrlit to determine the sufficiency of such 

 election is in tliis country habitually in the legislative 

 body, while the elections to the English House of 

 Commons are determined judicially t>y the courts. 

 The consequence of the mode of determining such 

 questions prevailing in this country is that such ques- 

 tions are more frequently determined on political 

 grcmnds than in a judicial spirit. 



The relation of the representative to his constitu- 

 ents, as it regards his duty of conforming to their 

 opinions and desires in the exercise of his functions, 

 has given rise to much difference of opinion, and is 

 likely to remain a subject of speculative opinion for the 

 want of triliuii.ils competent to bring it to a final solu- 

 tion. In many of the States, as already noticed, the 

 right of the people to instruct their representatives is 

 directly conferred by the State constitutions. The 

 construction of these clauses cannot come into the 

 courts under ordinary circumstances, and they must 

 remain to ! expounded by the slow process of the 

 formation of public opinion. It is hardly to be sup- 

 posed that the expression, instructiun, as there used 

 was intended in the sense of a binding requirement, 

 but rather as an equivalent of informatitm. For the 

 people to instruct their representatives, in the sense 

 of laying them under obligations to act in a particular 

 way, would require that they should act collectively, 

 the whole peo|iieuf t!i community participating, as in 

 u convention of the w hole people or their selectea dele- 

 f ;it> s ; but it is not to be presumed that such was the 

 intention of those constitutions that secure to the 

 jM-ople. the right to instruct their representatives. 

 I'lie^:' clause* are intimately interwoven with others 

 very clearly intended ti secure individual rights and 

 the rights ol collective bodies of persons less than the 

 whole community, an I associated together merely by a 

 common opinion or interest on certain subjects; and 

 certainly individuals and irregular collective bodies 

 were not intended to have a controlling influence on 

 the action of the representatives of the whole people. 

 Where the duty of a representative is pointed out by 

 a el'Mi olilL'ation to the whole community, it is quite 

 plain that it should not ! controlled by a portion of 

 (hat Community Ic.-s than its majority. 

 _ That the repre-niMiive should bring to the atten- 

 tion of the legislative body the sentiments and opin- 



ions of the local constituency represented by him seems 

 to be generally conceded ; and clearly, where they have 

 a peculiar interest affected by public measures, that 

 interest should be represented and protected by their 

 representatives, unless overborne by superior interests 

 affecting the whole community. While it would seem 

 that so important a feature of a popular system of gov- 

 ernment as that which relates to the duty of the repre- 

 sentative in view of the known wishes of his constituents 

 should be reduced to something likean exact understand- 

 ing, yet the formation of a common opinion upon the 

 subject is by no means an easy matter under the sim plest 

 conditions of such relation, but is seriously compli- 

 cated through the division of responsibility incident to 

 party organization, which in popular governments 

 appears to be the natural consequence of the effort of 

 opinions and interests to reach the condition of a 

 public policy. (A. J. w.) 



REPUBLICAN PARTY. The failure of the two 

 great American political parties, Whig and Democrat, 

 after earnest efforts for a quarter of a century to settle 

 the slavery question by such compromises as would be 

 satisfactory to both North and South, resulted ulti- 

 mately in the disintegration of the former party and the 

 formation of a new political organization. All attempts 

 at conciliation through legislation were fruitless of 

 satisfactory results, as the Democrats refused to sur- 

 render what they claimed as rights under the Constitu- 

 tion and laws that affected the slavery question. Out- 

 side of the Abolitionists (<f. t>.), who'had never become 

 a prominent factor in politics, the legal right to hold 

 slaves in the several States where slavery existed was 

 not denied, but the question that agitated the public 

 mind at the middle of this century was whether the 

 area of slavery should be extended into the Territories. 



The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which had 

 interdicted slavery north of latitude 36 30', made 

 Kansas the battle-ground, and the friends of either 

 side exerted themselves to populate and protect I hat 

 Territory with those of their own political faith. The 

 right of the slaveholders to take their slaves with them 

 into that Territory was denied by the Free State men, 

 on the ground that slavery was a local institution and 

 must be confined to the States where it already existed. 

 On the other hand, the slaveholders claimed the right, 

 inasmuch as slavery was virtually recognized by the 

 Constitution, to carry their slaves to any part of the 

 United States as they could any other property. Thus 

 this question became a direct issue which in the fulness 

 of time brought the Republican party into existence. 

 The Freesoilers of the North formed its advanced 

 guard, and the old Abolition party fell into its ranks. 



Public discussion both in and out of Congress, instead 

 of quieting the discordant elements, increased their in- 

 tensity, and party lines became more rigidly drawn 

 than before. The Whig party won its last national 

 victory in 1848 through a partial coalition with the 

 Freesoilers, but after the death of Pres. Taylor in 

 1850 Fillmore notably changed the policy of the admin- 

 istration. The Whig party had become effete by its 

 repeated and futile attempts at compromise, while the 

 Free Soil party was young and aggressive, and was 

 founded on a vital issue. When the disintegration 

 took place, the Southern pro-slavery portion drifted 

 to the Democrats, while the anti-slavery Whigs in the 

 North still opposed its old political foe. The presi- 

 dential campaign of 1852, the last in which the Whig 

 party figured in national politics, was only an exhibi- 

 tion of its weakness. In its platform it was silent on 

 the slavery question, with the exception of an indorse- 

 ment of the Fugitive Slave law which had been enacted 

 by the Thirty-second Congress. This absurd silence at 

 a time when the public mind was absorbed by the 

 slavery question tended to make its decay more certain 

 and rapid. It received only 42 out of 296 electoral 

 votes. 



In marked contrast with the Whigs, the Free Soil 

 party took strong grounds, declaring against any more 



