hatter in regard to which they would not decide whether it would make him free or not; that they ecided the further point that taking him into a Jnited States Territory where slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress did not make him free, because hat Act of Congress, as they held, was unconstituional. I mentioned these three things as making up the points decided in that case. I mentioned. hem in a lump, taken in connection with the introuction of the Nebraska Bill, and the amendment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted down by the friends of the bill. I nentioned all these things together, as evidence ending to prove a combination and conspiracy to nake the institution of slavery national. In that connection and in that way I mentioned the decision on the point that a negro could not be a citizen, and n no other connection.

Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful abrication of my purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. His assertion that I made an "especial objection" (that is his exact language) to the decision on this account is untrue in point of fact.

Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded to, I desire to place myself, n connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right before chis people as may be. I am quite aware what the Judge's object is here by all these allusions. He knows that we are before an audience having strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place of

X

birth, and so on. He desires to place me in an extremely Abolition attitude. He read upon a former occasion, and alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what is called garbling,-taking portions of a speech which, when taken by themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as expressed at the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, to show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking an extract before and an extract after) will give a different idea, and the true idea I intended to convey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe I will occupy the time that way.

You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in regard to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion. I said-and it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in his published speeches:

"It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slaves among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to remain

slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure we grasped for more; and having by necessity subtted to that much, it does not destroy the principle at is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter reain as our standard."

Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly Judge Douglas against the disposition to interfere th the existing institution of slavery. You hear read it from the same speech from which he takes rbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me disposition to interfere with the institution of very, and establish a perfect social and political uality between negroes and white people.

Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present e other extract from a speech of mine, more than a ar ago, at Springfield, in discussing this very same estion, soon after Judge Douglas took his ground at negroes were not included in the Declaration of dependence:

"I think the authors of that notable instrument inided to include all men, but they did not mean to dere all men equal in all respects. They did not mean say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral velopment, or social capacity. They defined with erable distinctness in what they did consider all men ated equal,-equal in certain inalienable rights, among ich are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. is they said, and this they meant. They did not mean assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually oying that equality, or yet that they were about to fer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no wer to confer such a boon. They meant simply to

declare the right, so that the enforcement of it migh follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

They meant to set up a standard maxim for fre society which should be familiar to all,—constanth looked to, constantly labored for, and even, thoug never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to a people, of all colors, everywhere."

There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,-sentiments which have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what so humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it.

At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration ci Independence did not include negroes in the term "all men." I reassert it to-day. I assert that Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole records of the country, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the astounding sentiment that the term men" in the Declaration did not include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than three years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way of their scheme to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Ca

oun and all the politicians of his school denied the ruth of the Declaration. I know that it ran along

the mouth of some Southern men for a period of ears, ending at last in that shameful, though rather orcible, declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the oor of the United States Senate, that the Declaraion of Independence was in that respect "a selfvident lie," rather than a self-evident truth. But

say, with a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, hat three years ago there never had lived a man ho had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of retending to believe it, and then asserting it did not nclude the negro. I believe the first man who ever aid it was Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott ase, and the next to him was our friend Stephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of he entire party. I would like to call upon his friends verywhere to consider how they have come in so hort a time to view this matter in a way so entirely ifferent from their former belief; to ask whether hey are not being borne along by an irresistible urrent,-whither, they know not.

In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some man in Chicago has got up a etter, addressed to the Chicago Times, to show, as he rofesses, that somebody had said so before; and he igns himself "An Old-Line Whig," if I remember orrectly. In the first place, I would say he was not n old-line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with ld-line Whigs from the origin to the end of that arty; I became pretty well acquainted with them,