New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-07-20
E0UALITY OF THE STATES.

The doctrine of the equality OF men, being found
hard to reconcile with the advocacy of the perpetu
alton and extension OF Slavery no longer finds any
favor with our Sham Democratic orators and poll
ticians But as q substitute for this abandoned
doctrine they dwell with great parade and JUNCTION
upon the doctrine of the Equality of States In
Mr.. Bucbaban's late indorsement of Mr.. Breckin-
ridges n mination for the Presidency, this notion
of Strict Equality is the thing chiefly assisted upon,
and Mr. Breckenridge himself, ia his speech at Bal
timore, gives to it equal prominence.
1t is difficult to understand with what view this
doctrine of the equality Of the States is thus en-
phatically brought forward, unless it be to afford
basis for insisting that in the adoption ola national
policy and in the management of the affairs of the
UUion, each State ought to enjoy an equal weight;
that on the question: for instance, of the extension
of Slavery mo the Territories of the United
States, OF of the revival of the African slave
trade, the wishes and opinions of Florida ought
by virtue of this alleged State equality, to count
for Just IS much as those of NewYOIk The
Constitution of the United States gives however,
no countenance to any doctrine of this sort.
Whatever may be alleged as to the
original sovereignty of the thirteen States
which declared themselves Independent of Great
Britain, or concerning their political equality un-
der the Articles of Confederation that sovereignty
and that equality were most essentially modified
by the Federal Constitution, while as to the twenty
States since admitted into the Union, they never
had any sovereignty, nor any State rights of any
kind except those specially col ferred upon them
by the provisions Of that instrument. This doctrine
of State equallty, in relation to national affairs go
far from having been recognized in the Federal
Copyeltion that framed the Constitution, came
very near proving an insurmOuntable obstacle to
the formation of any Constitution at all. Certain
of the smaller and less populous States, which, in
relation to the others, occupied at that
time a position analogous to that now
held by the slave-hoding in relation to the free
labor States, strenuOusy insisted upon preserving
the same equality under the new form of govern.
ment which they possessed under the Articles OF
Confederation They wished to have in every
thing of national concern an equal voice and an
equal weight with the larger aud more pnpulous
States. Upon this point, however, they we're
obliged to Yield. Upon the capital question o. the
basis of representation in the House OF Representa-
tiyes. the smaller States found it nect ssary to
forego this claim of equality, and TO be content
with representation in that body proportlOnate
to their population. They preserved, indeed, an
eoua y III the Senate, and, as regards the election
Of President, they also secured some pa tial ad-
vantuges But the new Government created by
the Federal Constitution diff red essentially from
that which had e1i,ted under the Articles OF Con-
federation, in deprvrg the States of that equal
voice which they had hitherto possessed in the
control of national affairs, and introducing the
new element of numbers
This new element is just as much recognized in
the Federal Constitution as are the States them
selves; and, under the provisions OF that instru-
ment, is just much entitled as the States are TO
a certain weight in controlling the National Gov.
eminent and determining its policy. The equality
of the States consists not in any right to an equal
voice in deciding questions of National interest and
importance but merely in the equal right which
they possess and enjoy to the independent control
Of their own internal affairs; subject, however,
even az TO that matter, to certain important
restrictions imposed upon them by the Fed
eral Constitution. What does Mr.. buchanan
mean by talking about the equality oil the
States in the Territories The States, as
States, have nothing whatever to do with
the Territories. Ii is not the States That
EN- crate to the Territories, but only citizens Of
the States, and they, by virtue of that very emil
grafton, lose all political connection with the States
which they have left and subject themselves to the
laws of the Territory into which they have come.
The Government of the Territories belongs, under
the Federal Constitution, not to the States, ind.
viduay or collectively, but to the General Gov
ernment. In respect TO the policy to be pur-