按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate
of the United States； as will appear from the appendix of the
Congressional Globe of that date。
On the 9th of August； Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the
House of Representatives； as will appear by the same documents；the
appendix to the Congressional Globe of that date。 On the 21st of
August last； all threeLanphier； Douglas； and Harrisreattempted it
upon me at Ottawa。 It has been clung to and played out again and
again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio。 And now
that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge
Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all。 He makes no complaint of
Lanphier； who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning。
He； Lanphier； and Harris are just as cozy now and just as active in
the concoction of new schemes as they were before the general
discovery of this fraud。 Now； all this is very natural if they are
all alike guilty in that fraud； and it is very unnatural if any one
of them is innocent。 Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor
among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself；
and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a
satisfactory report upon his investigation。 But meanwhile the three
are agreed that each is 〃a most honorable man。〃
Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a
re…election to the United States Senate； and he makes and reports
against me and against Judge Trumbull； day after day； charges which
we know to be utterly untrue； without for a moment seeming to think
that this one unexplained fraud； which he promised to investigate；
will be the least drawback to his claim to belief。 Harris ditto。 He
asks a re…election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to
remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable fraud！ The
Illinois State Register； edited by Lanphier； then； as now； the
central organ of both Harris and Douglas； continues to din the public
ear with this assertion； without seeming to suspect that these
assertions are at all lacking in title to belief。
After all； the question still recurs upon us； How did that fraud
originally get into the State Register。？ Lanphier then； as now； was
the editor of that paper。 Lanphier knows。 Lanphier cannot be
ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted。 Can he be
induced to tell； or； if he has told； can Judge Douglas be induced to
tell how it originally was concocted？ It may be true that Lanphier
insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally devised
shall at least bear their share of it！ How that is； I do not know；
and while it remains unexplained I hope to be pardoned if I insist
that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges against Trumbull
and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establish them！
While we were at Freeport； in one of these joint discussions； I
answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded
to me； and then in turn propounded some to him； which he in a sort of
way answered。 The third one of these interrogatories I have with me；
and wish now to make some comments upon it。 It was in these words：
〃If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the
States cannot exclude slavery from their limits； are you in favor of
acquiescing in； adhering to； and following such decision as a rule of
political action？〃
To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense
of the word。 He contented himself with sneering at the thought that
it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision。
He sneered at me for propounding the interrogatory。 I had not
propounded it without some reflection； and I wish now to address to
this audience some remarks upon it。
In the second clause of the sixth article； I believe it is； of the
Constitution of the United States； we find the following language：
〃This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof； and all treaties made； or which shall be
made； under the authority of the United States； shall be the supreme
law of the land； and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby； anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding。〃
The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence
which I will now read：
〃Now； as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion；
upon a different point； the right of property in a slave is
distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution。〃
I repeat it； 〃The right of property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution〃！ What is it to be 〃affirmed〃
in the Constitution？ Made firm in the Constitution； so made that it
cannot be separated from the Constitution without breaking the
Constitution； durable as the Constitution； and part of the
Constitution。 Now； remembering the provision of the Constitution
which I have readaffirming that that instrument is the supreme law
of the land； that the judges of every State shall be bound by it； any
law or constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding；
that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that
Constitution； is made； formed into； and cannot be separated from it
without breaking it； durable as the instrument； part of the
instrument；what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument
from it？ I think it follows； and I submit to the consideration of
men capable of arguing whether； as I state it； in syllogistic form；
the argument has any fault in it：
Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right
distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United
States。
The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed
in the Constitution of the United States。
Therefore； nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can
destroy the right of property in a slave。
I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument； assuming
the truth of the premises； the conclusion； so far as I have capacity
at all to understand it； follows inevitably。 There is a fault in it
as I think； but the fault is not in the reasoning； but the falsehood
in fact is a fault of the premises。 I believe that the right of
property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
Constitution； and Judge Douglas thinks it is。 I believe that the
Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain
for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say； therefore； that I
think one of the premises is not true in fact。 But it is true with
Judge Douglas。 It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it。
They are estopped from denying it； and being estopped from denying
it； the conclusion follows that； the Constitution of the United
States being the supreme law； no constitution or law can interfere
with it。 It being affirmed in the decision that the right of
property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
Constitution； the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or
constitution can destroy that right。 I then say to Judge Douglas and
to all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer
to show that those who have said that the right of property in a
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution； are
not prepared to show that no constitution or law can destroy that
right。 I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a
mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever has
so said is not prepared； whenever public sentiment is so far advanced
as to justify it； to say the other。 This is but an opinion； and the
opinion of one very humble man； but it is my opinion that the Dred
Scott decision； as it is； never would have been made in its present
form if the party that made it had not been sustained previously by
the elections。 My own opinion is； that the new Dred Scott decision；
deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude
slavery； will never be made if that party is not sustained by the
elections。 I believe； further； that it is just as sure to be made as
to…morrow is to come； if that party shall be sustained。 I have said；
upon a former occasion； and I repeat it now； that the course of
arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject （I charge
not his motives in this）； is preparing the public mind for that new
Dred Scott decision。 I have asked him again to point out to me the
reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is。
I have turned his attention to the fact that General Jackson differed
with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court
decision。 I have asked his attention to