Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1903-01-03

ply, ignorance of climate. ignorance of
the people, their resources, and all
their equipment for statehood-and In
addition TO this. Ignorance OF the Go
montary principles upon which the fed
aral government was founded The
prospects for the Till would undoubt.
eddy be brighter II there were not so
many statesmen and newspaper writ.
ers who are entirely lacking in under
STANDING the true theory Of the fed.
raj union. The general discussion of
the pending measure has brought out
very clearly the need OF better instruc-
ton in the public schoos-or some
where-concerning the fundamental
principles Of the constitution of the
United states. with the lmpetuous
zeal which usually accompanies igno-
rance, the opponents OF admission
take the absurd ground that the popu-
iation OF any given state should not he
greatly disproportionate to the popula-
lion OF any other state.
For the first time in American his.
tory, this nonsensical theory received
the formal sanction of senate com.
mttee when Senator Beveridge argued
In his report in favor of waiting until
Arizona and New Mexico each should
have population of 1850 900. his con-
tention being that amy new state
should have a population equal to the
average population OF the remainder OF
the states"
Ignorance cannot be imputed to the
Indiana senator. of course. for in his
report he takes notice OF the rule
which has prevailed from the founda-
ton of the government, namely, that
new state should have, merely. a
population approximating the mini
mum population allotted to a congress.
sional district The senator states
frankly IN substance. that the time
has come for making new rule, his
reason being that the senate should
not be permitted to become a populous
body. But the ignorance to which we
refer is found among the people who
insist that some existing rule or law
or principle would be violated by the
admission of Arizona and New Mexico
as they stand.
There seems TO be a general igno-
rance of the fact that the question Of
senatorial representation was thor,
oughly thrcshed out In the debates in
the great assembly which framed the
American constitution. The argument
was then advanced that II would be un.
just for n small state To have the same
representation in the senate as n state
vastly greater in population. and while
there were many answers 10 this con.
tention the most forcelul were these:
/. That the question of liberty and
| self-government under state autonomy
was not properly dependent upon pop
ulation. beyond e requirement that
each state should have in addition To
area and resources. a population suf'
ficient to maintain a state government
2. That a senator of the United
States is not Representative" of his
state in the senate, but is, in fact, "a
senator of the United States" The al
lotment of two senators to each state
was to preserve an equilibrium be-
tween the wealthy and populous com
munities, and those which were poor
and sparsely settled.
3. That representation according to
population was provided for in the ma
tional house of representatives, in
which house all Legislation affecting
taxation must originate. Thus we find
today. that II Arizona were a state she
would have one lonesome representa-
! tive in the lower house as against the
th!rty-four representatives from the
state of New York.