In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

127 Petitions,฀Instructions,฀and฀the฀Duties฀฀ of฀Citizens฀and฀Representatives Daniel Buck, a Federalist congressman from Vermont, sat down in January 1796 to respond to a resolution sent him by a group of constituents. Those citizens from Bennington County urged Buck to investigate the constitutionality of the controversial treaty which had been denounced in the streets and newspapers the previous summer and was sure to come before the House of Representatives that spring. The clear implication of the resolution was that the citizens opposed the treaty and that Buck would be wise to follow their wishes. The petition noted that the citizens of Bennington had “unanimously condemned” the treaty and resolved that “it would be eligible for the people of the county of Bennington to appoint a convention . . . to confer on said treaty—to instruct the representative from the western district of Vermont in congress . . . to urge by every means in his power a strict inquiry into the constitutionality of that instrument in the ensuing session of congress.”1 While the Bennington petition gave voice to a newer, expansive conception of the rights of citizens, the duties of their chosen leaders, and the degree to which citizens could and should try to instruct or influence their representatives, Buck’s response harkened back to an older, more deferential notion suggesting limits to such involvement. He assured his constituents , “I cheerfully listen to the voices of my fellow citizens and friends . . . upon the subject of the treaty.” He went on to acknowledge that Vermonters did and should follow public issues closely, and to say that he appreciated their sentiments. However, Buck declared, he did not subscribe to all the sentiments expressed in the petition. Although “I am 5 128฀฀฀chapter฀five placed here as one of the representatives of the state of Vermont . . . my own judgment must be my guide.” The citizens of Vermont had “confided to me a trust, and delegated to me a power to act, I must faithfully exercise that power, according to my best judgment and ability.” Once he had investigated and studied the matter and made up his mind, “I must decide and act as I should rationally conclude my constituents would do, were they acting with integrity and uprightness, under the same impressio[n]s and view of the subjects as I myself at the same time possess.” Buck concluded with a postscript which acknowledged that many in Vermont had made up their minds on the treaty, presumably opposing it, and promised his constituents, “if I should have the misfortune in finally making up my opinion to differ from them in sentiment, I will do myself the honour to send you a statement of the reasons on which I found my judgment.”2 Later that same spring, as the Jay Treaty debate concluded with the House of Representatives voting to make appropriations for the measure, another group of citizens, this one in Newberry County, South Carolina, sent a petition to their congressman, Robert Goodloe Harper. They stated that although they did not like every component of the treaty, “we consider the many superior advantages you enjoy of national information, we conceive it places you in a capacity of judging these things much better than ourselves.” The address went on to praise Harper for exercising his prerogatives as an elected official, a “constituted authority” in the phrase of the day, instead of bowing to the first expressions of the public will. After Harper was informed “both publicly and privately, that near nine-tenths of your constituents were pointedly opposed to the ratification of the treaty,” the petitioners noted admiringly, “you did not sacrifice your feeling, in joining them to secure your popularity, but like a brave hero entered the field of national politics; and . . . by the dint of your pen, have given cogent reasons for a contrary opinion; which reasons have had their happy influence on the minds of a number of your fellow-citizens.”3 These South Carolina petitioners, unlike their New England brethren, evinced a deference to elected officials absent in the Vermont resolutions. The attitude of Harper’s constituents toward the duties of a representative —that he should not simply follow or transmit public opinion but should, if his superior knowledge and information warranted a different judgment, attempt to persuade citizens—contrasts significantly with the Vermont petitioners who wrote to Buck. By gently responding that he hoped he would be of the same mind as his...

Share